https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psyctests/field-guide
load(file = "../sober_rubric/raw_data/records_wide.rda")I wrote a little summary function to find columns which always consist only of a length 1 list with a single element. These can be losslessly translated to simple vectors.
col_structures <- records_wide %>%
ungroup() %>%
head(1000) %>% # looked only at 1000 to save time
rowwise() %>% # row wise is necessary to determine the length of the list in each row
mutate_all(~
if_else(length(.) == 1,
pluck_depth(.[[1]]),
pluck_depth(.))) %>%
ungroup() %>%
summarise_all(max) # take the maximum
# fetch all "simple" columns
col_structures %>% pivot_longer(everything()) %>%
filter(value == 1) %>% pull(name) %>%
cat(sep = "\n")## DOI
## Name
## Purpose
## Description
## InstrumentType
## Format
## SupportingDocumentationLink
## Commercial
## Permissions
## Fee
## TestYear
## TestItemsAvailable
## Reliability
## Validity
## FactorAnalysis
## NumberOfTestItems
## TestReleaseDate
## TestCorrectionDate
## FactorsAndSubscales# fetch all non-simple columns
col_structures %>% pivot_longer(everything()) %>% filter(value > 1) %>% pull(name) %>% cat(sep = "\n")## TestTypeList
## OtherVersionList
## AcronymList
## AuthorList
## LanguagePresentList
## LanguageAvailabilityList
## SupportingDocumentationList
## ConstructList
## TestFileList
## ClassificationList
## MethodologyList
## AdministrationMethodList
## AgeGroupList
## PopulationGroupList
## OtherPopulationDetailsList
## KeyWordList
## IndexTermList
## SourceCitationList
## InstitutionalAuthorList
## Correspondence
## WebsiteList
## AlternateNameList
## TestLocationList
## PublisherListSimplify all the simple list columns to character columns.
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
hoist(DOI, DOI = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Name, Name = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Purpose, Purpose = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Description, Description = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(InstrumentType, InstrumentType = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Format, Format = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(SupportingDocumentationLink, SupportingDocumentationLink = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Commercial, Commercial = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Permissions, Permissions = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Fee, Fee = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(TestYear, TestYear = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(TestItemsAvailable, TestItemsAvailable = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Reliability, Reliability = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(Validity, Validity = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(FactorAnalysis, FactorAnalysis = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(NumberOfTestItems, NumberOfTestItems = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(TestReleaseDate, TestReleaseDate = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(TestCorrectionDate, TestCorrectionDate = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(FactorsAndSubscales, FactorsAndSubscales = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE)
records_wide$Reliability <- str_replace_all(records_wide$Reliability, "[[:space:]]+", " ")
records_wide$Validity <- str_replace_all(records_wide$Validity, "[[:space:]]+", " ")
records_wide$FactorAnalysis <- str_replace_all(records_wide$FactorAnalysis, "[[:space:]]+", " ")
records_wide$FactorsAndSubscales <- str_replace_all(records_wide$FactorsAndSubscales, "[[:space:]]+", " ")
instrument_types <- tibble(InstrumentType =
c("Inventory/Questionnaire", "Rating Scale", "Test", "Battery",
"Index/Indicator", "Survey", "Screener", "Task", "Checklist",
"Interview Schedule/Guide", "Diary", "Coding Scheme", "Projective Measure",
"Q Sort", "Vignette/Scenario"),
instrument_type_broad = c("questionnaire", "questionnaire", "test", "test",
"questionnaire", "questionnaire", "questionnaire", "task", "other-rating",
"other-rating", "questionnaire", "other-rating", "task",
"questionnaire", "questionnaire"))
records_wide <- records_wide %>% left_join(instrument_types, by = "InstrumentType")
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
rowwise() %>%
mutate(classifications_n = length(ClassificationList)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
hoist(ClassificationList, classification_1 = list(1,1,1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
hoist(ClassificationList, classification_2 = list(2,1,1), .remove = FALSE) %>%
mutate(classification_1 = str_replace_all(classification_1, "[:space:]+", " "),
classification_2 = str_replace_all(classification_2, "[:space:]+", " "))
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
mutate(TestYear = as.numeric(TestYear))## Warning: There was 1 warning in `mutate()`.
## ℹ In argument: `TestYear = as.numeric(TestYear)`.
## Caused by warning:
## ! NAs introduced by coercionSet binary fields for “commercial” and “open”.
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
mutate(commercial_bin = case_when(
Commercial == "Yes" ~ 1L,
Commercial == "No" ~ 0L,
Commercial == "Unknown" ~ NA_integer_
),
open_bin = case_when(
Permissions == "May use for Research/Teaching" ~ 1L,
Permissions == "Not Specified" ~ NA_integer_,
TRUE ~ 0L
))records_wide <- records_wide %>%
hoist(AcronymList, first_acronym = list(1, 1), .remove = FALSE)
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
hoist(ConstructList, first_construct = list(1,1,1), .remove = FALSE)
table(records_wide$first_construct) %>% sort() %>% tail(20)##
## Coping Behavior Life Satisfaction
## 70 71
## Creativity Religiosity
## 72 77
## Body Image Resilience
## 78 78
## Attitudes Coping Strategies
## 80 81
## Empathy Intelligence
## 81 81
## Acculturation Personality Traits
## 83 86
## Consumer Attitudes Job Satisfaction
## 88 96
## Health-Related Quality of Life Quality of Life
## 107 108
## Social Support Personality
## 123 140
## Anxiety Depression
## 143 156acronym_base <- str_replace(records_wide$first_acronym, "-R$", "")
length(unique(acronym_base))## [1] 19909acronym_base <- str_replace(acronym_base, "--.+$", "")
length(unique(acronym_base))## [1] 19839acronym_base <- str_replace(records_wide$first_acronym, "--.+$", "")
length(unique(acronym_base))## [1] 20137records_wide$acronym_base <- acronym_baseExtract the source citation DOI. I didn’t actually run this yet, want to do it with scopus where I can get citations by year.
records_wide <- records_wide %>%
hoist(SourceCitationList, first_source_doi = list(1, "DOI", 1), .remove = FALSE)
source_dois <- records_wide %>% select(first_source_doi) %>% drop_na() %>% distinct()
# commented out for now
# source_dois <- rcrossref::cr_citation_count(source_dois$first_source_doi)
# records_wide <- records_wide %>% left_join(source_dois %>% rename(first_source_doi = doi, citation_count_crossref = count), by = "first_source_doi")
library(rscopus)
scopus_api_key <- "7804cba4fc15e860f8c5f549ac2215eb"
find_cit_scopus <- function(x){
}
for (i in seq_along(nrow(source_dois))) {
find_cit_scopus(source_dois$first_source_doi[i])
if(i %% 10 == 0) print(i, source_dois$first_source_doi[i])
}
existing <- readr::read_tsv("../sober_rubric/raw_data/scopus_citation_counts.tsv")## Rows: 836886 Columns: 3
## ── Column specification ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## Delimiter: "\t"
## chr (1): doi
## dbl (2): year, citation_count
##
## ℹ Use `spec()` to retrieve the full column specification for this data.
## ℹ Specify the column types or set `show_col_types = FALSE` to quiet this message.for (i in seq_along(setdiff(source_dois$first_source_doi, existing$doi))) {
x <- source_dois$first_source_doi[i]
if(! x %in% existing$doi) {
s <- generic_elsevier_api(api_key = scopus_api_key,
doi = x,
date = "1980-2023",
type = "citations",
search_type = "scopus")
citations <- s$content$`abstract-citations-response`$citeColumnTotalXML$citeCountHeader$columnTotal %>% as.data.frame()
if(length(citations)) {
colnames(citations) <- s$content$`abstract-citations-response`$citeColumnTotalXML$citeCountHeader$columnHeading %>% as.data.frame()
citations <- pivot_longer(citations, everything(), names_to = "year", values_to = "citation_count", values_transform = as.numeric, names_transform = as.numeric)
citations$doi <- x
} else {
citations <- tibble(doi = x)
}
existing <- bind_rows(existing, citations)
readr::write_tsv(existing, "../sober_rubric/raw_data/scopus_citation_counts.tsv")
}
if(i %% 10 == 0) { cat(paste(i, source_dois$first_source_doi[i])) }
}
records_wide <- records_wide %>% distinct() %>% left_join(existing %>% group_by(doi) %>% summarise(citation_count = sum(citation_count, na.rm = T)), by = c("first_source_doi" = "doi"))records_wide <- records_wide %>%
mutate(
no_reliability = Reliability == "No reliability indicated.",
first_reliability_match = as.numeric(str_match(Reliability, "(\\.\\d+)")[,2]),
all_reliabilities = lapply(str_extract_all(Reliability, "(\\.\\d+)"), as.numeric)
)table(records_wide$FactorAnalysis) %>% sort() %>% tail(2)##
## This is a unidimensional measure. No factor analysis indicated.
## 19 45868records_wide %>% group_by(InstrumentType) %>%
summarise(Reliability = mean(Reliability!="No reliability indicated."),
FactorAnalysis = mean(FactorAnalysis!="No factor analysis indicated." & FactorAnalysis != "This is a unidimensional measure."),
Validity = mean(Validity!="No validity indicated.")) %>%
arrange(Reliability+FactorAnalysis+Validity) %>%
mutate(across(c(Reliability, FactorAnalysis, Validity), ~ round(100 * .)))## # A tibble: 16 × 4
## InstrumentType Reliability FactorAnalysis Validity
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 Interview Schedule/Guide 34 6 22
## 2 Task 44 6 31
## 3 Diary 45 14 27
## 4 <NA> 53 5 41
## 5 Test 64 4 31
## 6 Q Sort 39 29 34
## 7 Survey 50 23 31
## 8 Vignette/Scenario 63 22 28
## 9 Checklist 59 14 42
## 10 Projective Measure 61 16 45
## 11 Index/Indicator 75 21 35
## 12 Coding Scheme 87 9 36
## 13 Battery 58 24 59
## 14 Rating Scale 86 27 46
## 15 Screener 70 34 78
## 16 Inventory/Questionnaire 82 56 60records_wide %>% group_by(classification_1) %>%
summarise(Reliability = mean(Reliability!="No reliability indicated."),
FactorAnalysis = mean(FactorAnalysis!="No factor analysis indicated." & FactorAnalysis != "This is a unidimensional measure."),
Validity = mean(Validity!="No validity indicated.")) %>% arrange(Reliability+FactorAnalysis+Validity) %>% Viewsamplesizes <- records_wide$Reliability %>% str_match_all(regex("\\bn ?= ?(\\d+)", ignore_case = TRUE)) %>% map(~ as.numeric(.[,2]))
samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% table() %>% sort()## .
## 4 9 68 89 103 114 123 127 136 137 140 144 155 156 159 161
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 166 167 168 173 176 177 183 188 190 191 192 193 194 195 198 201
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 203 207 212 215 216 218 222 223 224 227 232 240 241 243 247 249
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 252 254 256 257 262 263 264 268 269 270 273 275 276 277 284 286
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 287 293 299 301 304 310 324 342 343 344 346 350 354 362 367 370
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 371 372 374 377 378 383 385 392 405 406 408 412 414 422 447 451
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 453 459 477 485 487 491 502 507 514 520 525 534 544 559 569 572
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 582 588 589 600 611 614 618 625 654 656 658 661 665 667 671 675
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 677 678 682 686 692 694 707 713 746 749 753 775 787 797 812 820
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 840 861 870 910 917 923 933 942 956 975 995 1000 1040 1051 1066 1072
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 1141 1152 1174 1182 1194 1218 1219 1230 1388 1400 1419 1427 1560 2498 3251 3678
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 54 63 78 81 87 88 92 93 94 96 98 106 108 117 118 119
## 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
## 122 125 126 133 134 139 149 151 153 160 162 163 169 170 172 174
## 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
## 178 179 180 184 185 186 189 196 199 217 226 229 230 239 246 261
## 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
## 271 292 314 317 323 325 336 338 349 387 488 499 581 586 621 648
## 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
## 907 5 14 39 43 49 57 59 62 66 75 80 82 86 90 104
## 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
## 105 110 128 129 143 146 148 165 171 187 197 210 211 213 258 302
## 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
## 303 306 320 330 332 494 7 17 22 28 31 38 42 53 58 64
## 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
## 65 67 73 76 85 95 99 101 116 120 121 138 158 206 300 328
## 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
## 335 450 6 41 44 56 71 74 97 109 115 130 131 150 154 202
## 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
## 316 2 13 23 24 25 34 84 200 204 3 11 16 45 79 83
## 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7
## 102 8 12 27 33 35 48 51 225 40 52 55 61 29 50 26
## 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11
## 32 46 47 70 10 15 18 100 21 60 19 36 1 20 30
## 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 15 16 18 20 23samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% median()## [1] 82samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% length()## [1] 1048records_wide$Reliability[- (samplesizes %>% map_dbl(~ .[1]) %>% is.na() %>% which())]## [1] "Structural equation models were used to assess the equivalence of the BSRS linguistic versions used in community-based samples in Norway (n = 328), Romania (n = 581), and Russia (n = 665). Results indicate that the BSRS has satisfactory internal consistency and that the factor structure is invariant across all three linguistic adaptations"
## [2] "Internal Consistency: For the CBOCI Obsessions subscale, alpha = .85 for the OCD sample (n = 51), and alpha = .89 for the total sample (n = 494). For the CBOCI Compulsions subscale, alpha = .84 for the OCD sample (n = 54), and alpha = .89 for the total sample (n = 499). Test-retest stability: After a 1 month interval, and after deletion of missing data, the test-retest reliability in a sample of 55 students was as following: CBOCI Obsessions (r = .69, p < .001), Compulsions (r = .79, p < .001), and Total Score (r = .77, p < .001)."
## [3] "Internal Consistency: The corrected item-total correlations for the 30 items were all positive and ranged from .22 to .54. The coefficient alphas were as follows: Total CCS (.87; N = 328); Acceptance, Reframing, and Striving (.85; N = 332); Family Support (.86; N = 335); Religion–Spirituality (.90; N = 338); Avoidance and Detachment (.77; N = 335); and Private Emotional Outlets (.76; N = 336)."
## [4] "Item Reliability: Treating the 12 CAB-V items as a single scale, the Cronbach's alpha for the total sample (N = 1,862) was .93. For young, middle-aged, and elderly men, the Cronbach's alphas for the 12 CAB-V items were .93, .93, and .94, respectively. For young, middle-aged, and elderly women, the Cronbach's alphas for the 12 CAB-V items were .92, .94 and .95, respectively."
## [5] "The test-retest reliability for CSAT-CM was r = .81 (n = 47)."
## [6] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha for all 53 items in the DSQIID is 0.91. Test-Retest Reliability: The intraclass correlation for test–retest reliability (n = 52) is 0.95, with a two-tailed level of significance of P < 0.01 (>80% power). Interrater Reliability: The intraclass correlation for interrater reliability (n = 41) is 0.9, and the two-tailed level of significance is P < 0.01 (>80% power)."
## [7] "Preliminary data from a clinical sample of patients with a schizophrenia diagnosis (n = 27) revealed that the measure is acceptable to participants and suggested good reliability, with alphas of .96 for the anxiety subscale and .85 for the avoidance subscale."
## [8] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67). Test-Retest Reliability: The intraclass correlation for test-retest reliability was 0.82 (n = 330)."
## [9] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alpha ranged from .73 in the PHYS sample to .86 in the TUC sample. In the combined sample (n = 520), Cronbach alpha was .86. Test-retest Reliability: For test–retest reliability, 90 of 105 BYU and all 80 PHYS participants completed the SIC both times. The one-week test–retest reliability was r(s) = .90, p < .001; the intraclass correlation coefficient was similar, r(ICC) = .86, p < .001. The two-week test–retest correlations were lower: r(s) and r(ICC) = .75, ps < .001."
## [10] "Internal Consistency: The standardized coefficient alpha for the total Peritraumatic Distress Inventory score was 0.75 in officers and 0.76 in comparison subjects. Test-retest Reliability: A subgroup of officers (N = 71) was retested on the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory an average of 391 days (SD = 130, range = 80–585) after initial measure completion. The test-retest correlation coefficient was 0.74, indicating very good temporal stability."
## [11] "Internal Consistency: Estimates of internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas) were computed on the final scales and were as follows: .81 for ethical-emotional, .76 for rational-behavioral, and .84 for total VCRA score. Test-Retest Reliability: New subjects (N = 30) identified and attempted to resolve their conflicts and then evaluated those resolutions. They were asked 1 week later to reevaluate those original resolutions. Test-retest correlations between VCRA scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were .92 for total score, .84 for ethical-emotional subscore, and .88 for rational-behavioral subscore. Thus, VCRA scores were fairly stable over a short time."
## [12] "Internal reliability: Cronbach alphas for the six subscales and the total score of the PCQ in drug and alcohol users were as follows: Work (.84), Legal (.86), Family (.87), Health (.74), Finance (.82), Self (.66), and Total (.87). Test-retest reliability: Correlation coefficients for the self, family, legal, finance, health, and work subscales and the total scale within a 2-month interval (N = 49) were as follows: .37, .80, .85, .60, .61, .58, and .68 respectively."
## [13] "Internal consistency: The PSOSH had a Cronbach's alpha of .91 in a sample of college students. Test-retest reliability: In the 4th sample of college students (N = 144), test–retest reliability across a 3-week period was calculated (.82)."
## [14] "Internal Consistency: Alphas ranged from .75 (Attitude Toward Learning) to .88 (total score) for the total sample. Interrater Reliability: Shrout-Fleiss intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .57 (Attitude Toward Learning) to .73 (Competence Motivation) for a subsample (n = 47). Test-retest Reliability: Correlation coefficients ranged from .80 (Attitude Toward Learning) to .94 (Attention/Persistence) for a 3-week interval."
## [15] "Internal consistency: In Study 1 the SSOSH showed good reliability (Cronbach's alpha of .91) among a sample of college students. Test-retest reliability: The correlation between participants’ Time 1 SSOSH total score and their total SSOSH score 2 months later was .72 (N = 226)."
## [16] "Internal Consistency: Coefficient alphas computed for sample subjects (n=1400) for each ASCA Core Syndrome or Scale ranged from .70 (Solitary Aggressive [Impulsive]) to .92 (Overactivity Scale). Test-Retest Reliability: Coefficient alpha after 30 school days ranged from .66 (Solitary Aggressive [Provocative]) to .91 (Oppositional Defiant). No correlation was computed for the Solitary Aggressive (Impulsive) syndrome at retest."
## [17] "The internal reliability coefficient (alpha) was .85. The test-retest correlation (n = 102), measured over a period of 18 days, was .80."
## [18] "Coefficient alpha: .65 for 196 depressives and .63 for 161 normals; 3-month test-retest correlation: .54 for 161 normals. 1-week test-retest correlation: .73 for a supplementary sample (n = 49) of university students. Interitem rs: all positive and >.27 for depressives and .24 for normals, rs with other scales: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), .58 for depressives and .57 for normals; Depression Adjective Checklist (DACL), .40 for depressives and .37 for normals."
## [19] "Test-retest Reliability: Normative data were drawn from undergraduate students, business workers, and community members across various geographical locations in the United States, resulting in a sample of 815 participants. Clinical samples were drawn from outpatient and inpatient mental health facilities ( n = 342). Retest administrations were done 3 weeks after the initial testing and weekly thereafter for a 10-week period. Stability coefficients based on the Pearson product-moment coefficient provided estimates of reliability."
## [20] "Internal Consistency: This revised scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .88 in the high school sample of females (n = 320)."
## [21] "Internal consistency: The Cronbach's alpha levels of 0.90 for all subjects, 0.85 for inpatients, and 0.86 for community clients indicate a high level of internal consistency in which each item of the CERF-R appears to contribute independently to the scale as a whole. Interrater reliability: The overall ICC in a subsample of 106 State Hospital inpatients ranged from 0.76 to 0.91, with a mean ICC of 0.84 for the 17 items studied. Test-retest reliability: Reanalysis of data using elapsed time between CERF-R administrations to inpatients as an independent variable indicated that test–retest reliability was high in the less than 3-month condition (n = 86, p < .001) and the 3- to 6-month condition (n = 40, p < .01) wherein ICCs for all items were statistically significant."
## [22] "An exploratory factor analysis (N = 328) identified 5 factors: Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, Resistance, and Detachment, with internal consistency reliability estimates ranging from .72 to .90. The estimated 2-week test–retest reliabilities (N = 53) were between .48 and .85 for the 5 factors."
## [23] "The mean and standard deviation of the 24-item Cross-Cultural Sensitivity Scale scores, which has a range of 24 to 144, were 107.17 and 18.20 respectively. The internal consistency of both this scale was impressive showing a coefficient alpha of .93 (n = 64). Parallel forms were developed to facilitate the use in research and evaluation settings. There were no significant differences between the variances of the two 12-item forms. The scores on the two forms were highly correlated (r = .97, n = 55, p < .0001). In addition, the high levels of internal consistency shown with the longer version of the scale were retained, with coefficient alpha being .87 on both forms. When the short scales were again evaluated using a second sample of undergraduates, the coefficient alphas were .87 and .80 for Forms A and B, respectively."
## [24] "The alpha for the RT scale (N = 707) was high at .85, and the item reliability indices ranged from .45 to .69. The alpha for the SH scale (N = 675) was also high at .93, and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .33 to .78. Three-month test–retest reliabilities (Pearson r) for the RT scale and the SH scale were .90 and .87, respectively."
## [25] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach Alphas for the MMLOC were .83 for the entire sample (N = 230), .84 for males (N = 115), and .82 for females (N = 115), indicating good internal consistency."
## [26] "The 33-item SCRS showed high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The internal reliability of the SCRS was .98, as indicated by Cronbach alpha. Test-retest reliability over 3-4 weeks for a sample (n = 24) taken from the present group was .84. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the SCRS are suggestive of a homogeneous and reliable rating scale."
## [27] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha values for the Sexual Self-Schema Scale and each factor are as follows: full scale, .82; Factor 1, .81; Factor 2, .77; and Factor 3, .66 (N = 387). Test Retest Reliability: Reliabilities of the Sexual Self-Schema Scale were obtained for 2- and 9-week intervals. The total score reliability value for 2 weeks (N = 20) was .89 (p < .0001). Coefficients for each factor were as follows: Factor 1, .72; Factor 2, .76; and Factor 3, .85. As expected, the total score reliability (N = 172) of the measure over a 9-week interval was .88 (p < .0001)."
## [28] "Test reliability estimate between the first-week and fourth-week G-State measures for all subjects (N = 45) was .02, and the correlation between Week 1 and Week 4 G-Trait measures was .30."
## [29] "Test-retest correlations for the PCS on all participants tested (n = 40) indicated a high degree of stability across the 6-week period, r = .75."
## [30] "Reliability: For the validation subsample of professionals (n = 79) and for the graduate students (n = 51) on whom the following validity analyses were performed, the coefficient alpha values were as follows: Realism = .79, Genuineness = .83, total score = .89. The differences in internal consistencies between the professional and graduate samples were stated as being minuscule, with the exception of the Realism subscale. On that subscale, the alpha for the professional sample was .81, whereas for the student sample it was .72."
## [31] "Internal consistency: The samples used for the analyses of reliability were drawn from the overall sample. Pedigo and colleagues (2005) reported an overall internal consistency reliability for the three TTEF tasks as α = .86 (n = 611). Test–retest reliability: stability coefficients ranged from .85 to .94."
## [32] "Although the ESSI was not designed to be a psychometric test, questions of reliability and validity nonetheless apply. Initial test-retest reliability checks on a small homogeneous population (N=20-25) yielded correlation coefficients of great than +.85 on each of the four scales. Larger studies with heterogeneous populations need to be conducted by independent researchers."
## [33] "The pretreatment test–retest reliability coefficient was .86 (n = 38) or, more conservatively, .79 with a Spearman nonparametric correlation. Test–retest reliability for the individual items was also quite high. Kendall tau-b correlations ranged from .49 to .87 with a median of .74."
## [34] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency coefficients measured using KR-20 in a sample of N = 1182 ranged from .65 to .79 for all but three scales (potential economic stress, age inappropriate demands, and poor peer relations, which ranged from .48 to .52), indicating modest levels of internal consistency. Test-retest Reliability: Test-retest correlations over a 60-day period for an N = 138 nonclinical sample of college students ranged from .61 (age inappropriate demands) to 3 9 (marital discord), with a median = .83 and only 4 scales below .75 (isolation, peer relations, shared parenting, age inappropriate demands). All correlations were significant."
## [35] "Internal reliability: Cronbach’s alpha= .79 and based on standardized items, .806 for PFI Extent of Feeling Scales (N=160 adults). Parallel Form multiple choice naming of the 26 PFs: N=165, ages 12-65, 97%-100%. Test-retest reliability naming the 26 PFs: 2 week interval 98%, N= 40 adults."
## [36] "On the CANIS-R, preliminary results showed an interrater agreement that exceeded 85% on all items, summary ratings on physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse showing a mean agreement of 84.7% between raters (N = 138), and a Kappa coefficient of .68."
## [37] "Results from reliability analysis of the primary standardization sample (N = 302) indicated that Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .80 to .84 for the victim factor, .73 to .79 for the situational factor, .72 to .75 for the societal factor, and .53 to .54 for the parent perpetrator factor. These data indicate moderate to good internal consistency for the scale. No test-retest reliability was reported."
## [38] "In a study following Hurricane Andrew (n = 213), Cronbach’s alphas were .84 (intrusion), .72 (avoidance), and .85 (total). In a study of a high-crime, low-income area (n = 7 l ) , Cronbach’s alphas were .68 (intrusion), .53 (avoidance), and .73 (total). Interrater reliability on a study of adolescents exposed to a fire with interviewers having undergone 51 hours of training averaged .91."
## [39] "Cronbach's alpha for the 18 scales between .62 and .85 (N=2,751); re-test reliability for the 18 scales between .65 and .87."
## [40] "In the first study, the CTQ demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 for the total scale, with the following alphas for each factor: physical and emotional abuse (PEA) = .94, emotional neglect (EN) = .91, sexual abuse (SA) = .92, and physical neglect (PN) = .79, indicating high internal consistency. The CTQ also demonstrated good test-retest reliability for a subgroup of n = 40 over a 2- to 6 month interval (mean interval 3.6 months), with intraclass correlations for the total scale = .88 and intraclass correlations for each factor as follows: PEA = .82, EN = .83, SA = 31, and PN = .80."
## [41] "Cronbach's alpha between .76 and .94 for the 24 scales (N=202)."
## [42] "Cronbach's alpha between .72 and .95 for the 18 scales (N=812)."
## [43] "Cronbach's alpha between .71 and .92 for the 18 scales (N=12,763)"
## [44] "Cronbach's alpha between .73 and .93 for the 24 scales (N=1,355)."
## [45] "Cronbach's alpha between .61 and .84 for the 18 scales (N=477); re-test reliability between .73 and .89 for the 18 scales"
## [46] "Internal consistency: Coefficient alphas ranged from .45-.86 across the factors. The test-retest reliability of the 7 repeated items on the CEEQ was examined for a subset of the sample (n = 83). The Pearson product-moment correlation was computed, yielding correlations of .85 (p<.001) for the CEEQ."
## [47] "Split-half reliability .89 (N=3,216)"
## [48] "The two versions (adolescent and maternal) of the CBQ yielded four scores: adolescent's appraisal of mother, maternal appraisal of adolescent, adolescent's appraisal of dyad, and maternal appraisal of dyad. Each score was computed by counting the number of items endorsed in a negative direction. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) for the four scores was .95, .88, .94, and .90, respectively (N = 90)."
## [49] "Split-half reliability .96 (N=3,597)."
## [50] "Split-half reliability .84, re-test reliability .81 (N=87)."
## [51] "Split-half reliability .81 (N=692)."
## [52] "Split-half reliability .84 (N=588)"
## [53] "Split-half reliability .82 (N=514); re-test reliability .83 (N=84)"
## [54] "Split-half reliability .86 (N=370); re-test reliability .81 (N=84)"
## [55] "Split-half reliability .81 (N=314)"
## [56] "Split-half reliability .83 (N=314)"
## [57] "Split-half reliability .86 (N=162)"
## [58] "Split-half reliability .84 (N=162)"
## [59] "Split-half reliability .93 (N=317); re-test reliability .82 (N=116)."
## [60] "Split-half reliability .88 (N=11,064)."
## [61] "Split-half reliability .81 (N=211); re-test reliability .83 (N=100)."
## [62] "Split-half reliability .91 (N=1,163); re-test reliability .81 (N=186)."
## [63] "Split-half reliability .91 (N=26,010)."
## [64] "Temporal stability: Temporal stability was shown with high test-retest reliability coefficients of r = .80 over a 4-week interval for a small sample (N = 158)."
## [65] "Internal consistency: Internal consistency was examined in a large sample (N = 933 adults and N = 502 children). High alpha correlations were found for the three main scales: .93 for general, .95 for dyadic, and .89 for self-rating. For the general scale, the subscale alphas ranged from .67 for task accomplishment to .87 for social desirability. For the dyadic scale, the subscales ranged from .59 for affective expression to .82 for role performance; for the self-rating scale, scores ranged from .39 for the control subscale to .67 for the communication subscale. Test-retest reliability: In another smaller sample (N = 138 families with teenage children), temporal stability was examined across a 12-day interval. Correlations ranged from r = .46 to r = .72 across all subscales."
## [66] "Temporal stability was examined in a test-retest comparison across a 4 week interval for 116 family members. The correlation for the total scale score was r = .81, whereas subscale correlations ranged from r = .61 for reframing to r = .95 for seeking spiritual support. Internal consistency, examined via Cronbach’s alpha, was .86 for the total scale score in a large sample of community adults ( N = 2,582). Subscale alphas ranged from .63 for passive appraisal to .83 for acquiring social support."
## [67] "Test-retest reliability coefficients obtained over a 4-day interval for all raters were adequate for both the nonparanoid subscale (r = .73, p < .001; n = 26) and the paranoid subscale (r = .89, p < .001; n = 26). Including only those subjects with a different experimenter at each session yields adequate interrater reliability coefficients over the 4-day interval for both the nonparanoid subscale (r = .75,p < .001; n = 19) and the paranoid subscale (r = .88, p<.001; n= 19). Interrater reliability in a different sample of psychiatric patients was .61 on the paranoid subscale and .77 on the nonparanoid subscale."
## [68] "Internal consistency was established in a sample of N = 51 neglectful and N = 79 non-neglectful mothers. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .88 for the relatedness subscale, .77 for the impulse control subscale, .76 for the confidence subscale, and .63 for the verbal accessibility subscale."
## [69] "Test-retest reliability: A test-retest reliability coefficient for the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS) was calculated from the scores of two complete classes (n = 35) of students from the original large Missouri sample who were retested 7 weeks later. The mean MARS score on the first testing was 235.08 (SD = 51.26); the mean score was 232.97 (SD = 56.46) at the second testing. The Pearson product-moment coefficient between these two sets of scores was .85. Internal consistency: Coefficient alpha for the MARS is .97."
## [70] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency (Cronbach‘s alpha) of seven of the scales ranged between .61 and .91 across three samples (n = 378). For the activities scale, the alpha was smaller, ranging from .28 to .76 across the three samples."
## [71] "Internal consistency: Reliability examined via Cronbach’s alpha (N = 46 couples) revealed correlations of r = .92 for the anger subscale and r = .96 for pleasure subscale, indicating strong internal consistency."
## [72] "Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability was demonstrated over a 12-week interval for a small (N = 16) sample of mothers with correlations of r = .85 for total score and correlations ranging from r = .34 to r = .87 for subscale scores (all but \"leaving children alone\" were greater than r = .65)."
## [73] "In an investigation of the relative effectiveness of two educational programs for teaching personal safety skills (N = 100 children, N = 10 teachers), internal consistency reliability of the TPQ was .68 overall, .76 for negative behaviors and .15 for positive behaviors (Wurtele, Kast, Miller-Perrin, & Kondrick, 1989)."
## [74] "Internal Consistency: Alpha coefficients computed for item-total score comparisons were .57 for the anger intensity dimension and .49 for the problem dimension, indicating good internal consistency. In a second study of 17 maltreating parents, 18 nonmaltreating parents seeking psychological treatment, and 13 control parents, internal consistency was greater with item-total correlations of .90 for the problem dimension and .96 for the anger intensity dimension. Split-half Spearman Brown correlations were r = .84 for the problem dimension and r = .91 for the anger intensity dimension. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability computed across 8 to 21 days for a subset of the sample (N= 21) resulted in correlations of r = .78 for the problem dimension and r = .86 for the anger intensity dimension."
## [75] "Internal consistency: In a large reliability study of parents (N = 534), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .89 for the child domain (subscales ranged from .62 to .70), .93 for the parent domain (subscales ranged from .55 to .80), and .95 for total stress score. Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability was demonstrated at a three-month interval by correlations of .63 for the child domain, .96 for the parent domain, and .96 for the total stress score."
## [76] "Internal Consistency: The levels of internal consistency reliability for most scales were comparable across the Los Angeles and Rochester populations and were said to be adequate for survey purposes and group comparisons. Test-Retest Reliability: In a subsample of the Rochester population (N=45), one-week test-retest reliability correlations revealed significant levels of stability for most Quality of Life Interview items and scales."
## [77] "Alpha coefficients for each subscale of the TSS and item-total correlations were computed to determine internal consistency in a sample of undergraduate females (n = 451). The coefficient alphas were .92 (avoidance and fear), .93 (thoughts about sex), .85 (role of sex), and .80 (attraction/interest). Item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .79, indicating good internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was calculated across a three-week time period for a portion of the sample (n = 129). The following Pearson correlations were calculated for each subscale score: r = .88 for avoidance and fear, r = .87 for thoughts about sex, r = .89 for the role of sex, and r = .82 for attraction/interest."
## [78] "Across four studies (total N = 1,279), the reliability and validity of parallel German and English versions of the AMMSA scale were examined. The results show that both language versions are highly reliable; compared with a traditional RMA scale, means of AMMSA scores are higher and their distributions more closely approximate normality."
## [79] "Test-retest reliability: In a small treatment sample ( N = 38), Pearson correlations (parental anger, family problems) or Cohen’s kappas (discipline/force) were computed based on actual scores reported for each of two sets of adjacent sessions in order to determine temporal stability. Parent reports revealed moderate to high stability during early and late treatment periods for anger and problem ratings. A lower level of stability was found for physical force/discipline. Compared to child ratings using same format, moderate correlations were found for parental anger (r = .41) and family problems (r = .21), and the kappa coefficient for physical discipline/force was k = .53"
## [80] "The reliability of the AAI classifications was quite high over time (78% on the level of the 3 main categories; K = .63) and across interviewers. The 10 pairs of interviewers and status of interview classifications (changed vs. unchanged) were cross-tabulated. This analysis did not yield significant results, χ²(9, N=83)=11.93, p=.22. To test the influence of the interviewer on the classifications more generally, the authors examined whether particular interviewers were associated with specific classifications. On the level of the three main classifications, no significant associations were found, χ²(8, N=83) = 9.32, p=.32. When the unresolved classification was taken into account, this result did not change, χ²(12, N=S3)=7.04, p=.85."
## [81] "Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .88, and item–total correlations ranged from .60 to .75. A confirmatory factor analysis, Chi squared (14, N = 306) = 79.95, p < .05, achieved good fit to the data, as assessed by a comparative fit index (CFI) value of .94, a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value of .93, and a standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) value of .04. The alpha internal consistency estimate for the scale was .89."
## [82] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha value of 0.90 for the FEQ overall sample. For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.78 (Death and Danger), 0.79 (Social Evaluation and Psychic Stress), 0.69 (Physiological Experiences), and 0.54 (Animal fears). Test-retest Reliability: The FEQ was administered on two occasions, 1 week apart, to a subsample of adolescents from the total sample (n = 155; 83 males, 72 females). For the subsample and the total score, Pearson's correlation coefficients displayed the retest coefficient as 0.73. For the subsample and the four factor scores, the coefficients ranged between 0.47 (Animal fears factor) and 0.71 (Death and danger factor). For the total score by subgroups, the retest coefficient ranged between 0.65 for males, and 0.77 for females and 15- to 18-year-olds."
## [83] "Internal consistency: The Cronbach's alpha values for the Sexual Self-Schema Scale and each factor are as follows: full scale, .82; Factor 1, .81; Factor 2, .77; and Factor 3, .66 (N = 387). Test-retest Reliability: Test-retest coefficients over a 2- to 9-week interval for each factor were .72, .76, and .85, respectively."
## [84] "Internal Consistency reliability: (N=581) The obtained values for primary scales range from .67 to .87 and of the 14 scales, 10 are at .80 or above; 3 are between .70 and .80; 1 is at .67 Test-Retest Reliability: (N= 83, interval = one month) The obtained values for test retest reliability range between .69 and .90 and of the 14 scales, 12 exceed .80 with several approaching .90."
## [85] "For the sub-scales at 3 monthly age bandings internal consistency ranges from .68 to .94. Thirty-eight of the forty coefficients are above .70. Total scores for each sub-scale show internal consistency ranging from .91 - .97. A small sample of children (N=28) from the standardisation sample was re-tested with an average interval of 1.7 months between test occasions. The range of ages was 1.5 to 21.3 months on the first test. The overall test-retest reliability for the total set of scales was 0.48 with the greatest consistency being obtained with children in their second year (.82 vs. .29 for babies in the second six months and .29 for babies in the first six months). The same variations across age bands in terms of consistency over time are seen for the individual sub-scales. The only exception to this pattern is Scale B (Personal-Social) where consistency is highest in the first six months and lowest during the second six months."
## [86] "Mean test-retest reliability across test versions is 0.83 (N=41 with an interval of 10 days plus N=12 with same day re-testing)."
## [87] "Internal Consistency: Frierson et al (2006) found the Breast-Impact of Treatment Scale (BITS) to have a Cronbach's alpha = .91 for 2 samples, total n = 194. Test-retest reliability: Sample 1 was followed and reassessed 12 months following accrual. During that time interval, no psychological intervention was provided and patients had completed adjuvant cancer therapies. The correlation between testings was .70."
## [88] "Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alphas for the 27-item NSPS in Groups 1 and 2 (all undergraduate students) were both .96. Each factor also demonstrated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the social competence, physical appearance, and signs of anxiety factors, respectively, of .93 (n = 225), .91 (n = 225), and .85 (n = 225) in Group 1, and .94 (n = 316), .93 (n = 316), and .88 (n = 316) in Group 2. Test-retest reliability: Though not measured in Group 1, the test-retest reliability of the 27-item NSPS in Group 2 was satisfactory (r = .75; n = 316) over a one-week interval."
## [89] "Internal Consistency: All 7 items of the CPFQ had highly significant intercorrelations, with a range of 0.34–0.78 and a mean of 0.57, which for a 7-item scale yields coefficient alpha = 0.90. Results illustrate that all 7 items were also significantly correlated with the total CPFQ score (minus that item), with a range of 0.74–0.85. These results were found in a sample of patients with major depressive disorder. Test-Retest Reliability: The 1- to 2-week test-retest reliability (range = 5–14 days, mean = 8.1 days, SD = 2.6) in patients taking antidepressants with inadequate responses and cognitive residual symptoms was r = 0.83 (n = 32, p < 0.001)."
## [90] "Internal Consistency: Internal structure of the AEBLS-S was shown to have produced internal consistency estimates ranging from .87 to .90 across 15 agencies (e.g., high schools, correctional institutions, psychiatric centers) with adolescent Ss (N = 2498)."
## [91] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha's for the German-WTS were good (α = .89 for Coworker Trust) or excellent (α = .95 for Organizational Trust, and α = .96 for Supervisor Trust). Test-retest reliability: Retest reliability was obtained from the second sample (employees of a pharmaceutical company, n = 97). All of the three dimensions of the G-WTS showed satisfactory reliability values, with values of r = .77 for Coworker Trust, r = .73 for Supervisor Trust, and r = .70 for Organizational Trust (all values significant at a level of p < .01)."
## [92] "Internal consistency: Internal consistencies of the 16 Facets in a Personality-Disordered sample (n = 1,208) ranged from .69 (Respect) to .84 (Aggression regulation)."
## [93] "Internal consistency: Coefficient alpha was .89. To test whether the youngest children might be accounting for lower reliabilities, we calculated and compared internal consistency reliabilities separately for children aged 12 years and younger (n = 33, alpha = .89) and children aged 13 years and older (n = 58, alpha = .84). We divided the sample between the ages of 12 and 13 years because this is the typical age when children transition from elementary school to middle school, thus marking an important developmental shift. The Fisher-Bonett Test for equality of independent alpha coefficients revealed a nonsignificant difference in alpha coefficients across age groups."
## [94] "Reliability: In a test with 83 children (mean ages 10.9 years, SD = 1.64, N = 36 and 13.9, SD = .67, N = 47), the standardized item α reached .89. For each factor (i. e., dimension) separately, item α coefficients of .96, .95, and .92 were obtained. In a second test with 8-13 yr olds, the total scale standardized item α attained was .68."
## [95] "Internal Consistencies in French version of ATQ Short Form (across 2 samples of young adults, n = 258, and n = 385, respectively): Across all 4 dimensions, all Cronbach’s αs ranged from .67 to .85 for the first sample, and from .72 to .82 for the second sample."
## [96] "Internal Consistency: With the exception of the Unassuming-Ingenuous (J-K) scale, whose coefficient of reliability was low (if the Spearman Brown prophecy formula were applied, the estimated reliability of the J-K scale would be 0.58 for N = 10), the present Circumplex scales reached a satisfactory level of reliability (average alpha = .73; average interitem correlation = 0.25)."
## [97] "The internal reliability of the seven intergenerational congruence items was very high; alpha = .85 in the case of the father items and alpha= .84 in the case of the mother items. One-month test-retest reliability with a subset of the sample (n = 51) was also high; with r =. 90 for the father items, and .88 for the mother items. Additionally, test-retest reliability of the overall satisfaction with the relationship items was also high: .93 for father and .89 for the mother items."
## [98] "Test-retest Reliability: A subset of 40 subjects from the sample of young men completed a second SRE form approximately 1 year later. Correlations for individual items between Time 1 and Time 2 ranged from .60 to .99, with most in the .66 to .79 range. A correlation of .82 (n = 40) was achieved between an individual's mean SRE score across all categories at the two time points."
## [99] "Test-Retest Reliability: at 30-60 days, (n = 29), varied from .64 to .84, with the exceptions of subject's aggression to mother, which yielded a coefficient of .43, and mother's strictness, with a coefficient of .46."
## [100] "A subsample filled out the ASQ-OAV two months after their initial interview. In this small group (N=13), the test–retest correlation of the entire measure was 0.44, while the test–retest correlation for the affiliation composite score was 0.50. The internal reliability of the affiliation items was calculated using Nunnally’s (1978; Equation 7–15) reliability equation, which corrects for the use of linear combinations of variables, as each composite domain score represents a linear combination of the positive and negative items for that domain. The reliability of the composite affiliation score in participants who completed at least the six month follow-up was a disappointing 0.60. This reliability falls towards the upper end of the range found by Peterson et al. (1982) for six-item composites from the original ASQ. It is important to note that less-than-perfect reliabilities have been found in previous explanatory style research, but the results have been deemed useful nonetheless."
## [101] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency (alpha) coefficients for the scales were as follows: self-acceptance, .93; positive relations with others, .91; autonomy, .86; environmental mastery, .90; purpose in life, .90; and personal growth, .87. Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest reliability coefficients for the 20-item scales over a 6- week period on a subsample of respondents (n = 117) were as follows: self-acceptance, .85; positive relations with others, .83; autonomy, .88; environmental mastery, .81; purpose in life, .82; and personal growth, .81."
## [102] "The internal reliability of the scale, computed for the standardization sample of n = 212, was .86. The reliability estimate was .83 computed on a later sample of 406 Ss. Both estimates suggest moderately good consistency of response within the whole scale. Test-retest reliabilities ranged from r = .73 to .89."
## [103] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha of the four main SCAAI scales across the four studies was generally moderate to high (.46 to .82). Test-retest reliability: In a subsample of Study 2 (n = 48), test-retest reliabilities of .71 to .79 were obtained for the four main subscales of the SCAAI over a 1-5-week period."
## [104] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alphas ranged from .76 to .93. Item-scale correlations ranged from .70 to .88 for the Attractive scale, from .51 to .82 for the interpersonally Sensitive scale, and from .38 to .76 for the Task Oriented scale. Test-retest reliability: The test-retest reliabilities of the ratings of master's-level trainees (N = 32) for the combined scales (.92) and for each scale separately were as follows: attractive (.94), interpersonally sensitive (.91), and task oriented (.78)."
## [105] "Test-retest reliability: A pilot study (N = 27 female undergraduates) yielded 2-week test-retest coefficients of 0.82, 0.77, and 0.51 for the family, peer and media modeling scales, respectively. Internal consistency: Cronbach's alphas were 0.78 for the family modeling scale, 0.85 for the peer modeling scale, and 0.88 for the media modeling scale."
## [106] "Internal Consistency: This revised scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .88 in the high school sample of females (n = 320)."
## [107] "Internal consistency: Coefficient alphas for the RISC ranged from .85 to .90, with a mean of .88. The measure's corrected item-total correlations ranged from .52 to .69. Test-retest reliability: The test-retest reliabilities over a 2-month interval in two samples were .73, n = 67, p < .001 and .63, n = 317, p < .001. The test-retest reliability over one month was .74, n = 405, p < .001 and .76, n = 46, p < .001."
## [108] "Internal consistency: Internal consistency of the Individuation Scale was estimated by Cronbach's coefficient alpha, which yielded reliability coefficients of .87 (N = 667) and .84 (N = 246). Test-retest reliability: The test interval was 1 to 3 weeks, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was .91."
## [109] "Internal Consistency: A pilot study (N = 117) indicated that the DIS is internally (α = .94) reliable. Test-retest Reliability: The 1-month test-retest reliability was .92."
## [110] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha for the 25-item short form scale is 0.89 (n = 621). Test-retest Reliability: The retest reliability for the scale after a period of roughly sixth months is r = 0.85 (n = 459)."
## [111] "Mean internal consistencies of each MIDAS scale reveal alpha coefficients of .78 to .89. A 2001 study reported reliability coefficients of .85-.90. Similar coefficients were obtained for all scales in international studies of MIDAS translations. Two studies of test-retest reliability revealed 1-month stability coefficients of .76 to .92 and 2-month stability coefficients of .69 to .86. Two studies of interrater reliability comparing the ratings of a primary and secondary informant regarding a target person found that in one, informants agreed 80% of the time within one category, with a 40% exact agreement; the second, an international study, found that informants agreed 92% within one category and 46% exact agreement. A study of cultural reliability (N= 119 college students, of whom 49% were African American and 42% were Caucasian) showed no statistically significant differences in mean scores for 9 of 10 main scales. See the publisher’s test manual for details."
## [112] "Internal consistency: The 20-item scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .83 at Time 1. Test-retest reliability: An independent pilot study (N = 44) revealed a 1-month test-retest coefficient of .86 for this adapted scale."
## [113] "Test-Retest Reliability: Acceptable test-retest reliability was found, with an ICC of 0.778 (P < 0.0001) (n = 67). Inter-Rater Reliability: Inter-rater reliability, testing pairwise concordance between three pairs of raters, revealed an ICC of 0.998 for rater one versus two, 0.995 for rater one versus three and 0.996 for rater two versus three (n = 8 patients). Internal Consistency: Good internal consistency was found for the SPRINT, for which Cronbach’s was 0.77 at baseline and 0.88 at endpoint."
## [114] "The internal-consistency reliabilities for the 80-item California Psychological Inventory-Counterproductivity Scale ranged from .80 to .90 in samples of students, managers, and non-management job applicants. For the ten work-related items only, the corresponding values were: males=.750; females=.726; weighted mean=.734. For the 25 student-related items only, the corresponding values were: males=.895; females=.889; weighted mean=.891. Alpha values for each subscale were as follows: Cheating=.84, Substance Abuse=.86, Low Personal Standards=.76, Property Theft=.60, Duplicity=.73, Misrepresentation=.74, Work Avoidance=.66, Petty Personal Gain=.66, Indolence=.58. Test-retest correlations were (with a 2-3 week interval): males, .878 (n=71); females, .899 (n=158). The pooled test-retest correlation was .893. The obtained reliability estimates for the CPI-Cp scale would appear completely satisfactory for a measure of a personality trait (or constellation) based on self-report data."
## [115] "For the present sample (n = 30), the 1-week test-retest reliabilities (assessed prior to the first and second sessions for the clients and following these sessions for the therapist), for the client blame, client control, therapist blame, and therapist control subscales were r = .67, .55, .71, and .68, respectively. Internal consistency for each of the subscales was estimated (using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula) to be r = .52 and .56 for the client blame and control subscales, respectively; and r = .45 and .50 for the therapist blame and control subscales, respectively. On an independent sample of clients from the same center (n = 12), the reliability of the blame and control scales between the first and second session was r = .78 and .68, respectively, and the internal consistency was .62 and .60."
## [116] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha reliability was .76 on data from two combined samples of university (N = 73; 16-33 years) and school (N = 204; 8-19 years) students."
## [117] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.818 (n=1141); Test/Retest r = 0.85 (n = 20); parallel forms r = 0.83 (n=51)."
## [118] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.757 (n=1051); Test/Retest: r = 0.81 (n = 213). For further details, see manual."
## [119] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.96 (n=183); Test/Retest: r = 0.82 (n = 211); Parallel forms: GRT A v GRT B - r = 0.85 (n = 134); GRT A v GRT B - r = 0.84."
## [120] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.71 (n=677); Test/Retest: r = 0.62 (n = 25)."
## [121] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.79 (n = 58); Test/Retest: r = 0.62 (n = 25); Test-retest (n = 8) = 0.80, p<0.01."
## [122] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's α > 0.88 for all scales (n=1218)."
## [123] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's α was .85. Test–retest reliability: Test–retest reliability across a 1-year period was strong (r = .63, p < .001, n = 197)."
## [124] "Interrater Reliability: Intrarater reliability was high: intraclass r(20) = .84. Internal Consistency: Intratest homogeneity, measured by Cronbach's alpha, was .81 (n = 35)."
## [125] "Internal Consistency: The two measures of Internalization (Cronbach’s alpha = .83) and Symbolization (Cronbach’s alpha = .82 ) showed strong reliability. Test-retest Reliability: The test–retest reliabilities for the Internalization and Symbolization scales were .49 and .71 (n = 148), respectively, over a time interval that varied from 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the sample. That these relationships are of modest magnitude supports the general argument that moral identity is not a stable trait and should not be treated as such."
## [126] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for internal consistency reliability of teacher responses to SES-T total score was .95 in Study 1 (n = 678) and .93 in Study 2 (n = 85). Test-retest Reliability: The 14-day test– retest reliability coefficient for the total score of the SES-T for the teacher responses in Study 2 (n = 85) was .89."
## [127] "Internal consistency reliability for the SERSC was estimated by obtaining a coefficient alpha for each school class. Coefficients ranged from .70 to .91 with a median of .80. The test-retest reliability coefficients with a 1-month interval for the three classes were .93 (second grade, n = 18, p<.01), .81 (second grade, n = 24, p<.01), and .65 (third grade, n = 21, p<.01)."
## [128] "Internal Consistency: Despite the empirical approach to item selection, the test is homogeneous in makeup, as indicated by a split-half reliability coefficient of .84 (N = 222 Temple University students)."
## [129] "Test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was assessed after a 4-5 month interval. The mean repeat reliability of the Parents' form (n = 13) was 81.23% (range = 70.31%-88.28%). The mean repeat reliability of the Children's form (n = 12) was 85.36% (range = 78.41%-94.32%)."
## [130] "Results indicated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The GESS-R split-half (using the Spearman-Brown correction for test length) reliability coefficient was .92 (n = 199)."
## [131] "The reliability of the Stroop scores is highly consistent across different versions of the test. In all cases, experimenters have looked at test-retest reliabilities covering periods from 1 minute to 10 days. Jensen (1965) reported reliabilities of .88, .79, and .71 for all three Raw Scores. Golden (1975b) reported reliabilities of .89, .84, and .73 (N=450) for the group version of the test and reliabilities of .86, .82, and .73 (N=30) for the individual version. Reliabilities for subjects given both the individual and group form were .85, .81, .81, and .69 (N=60). The reliabilities for the Raw Interference score in these samples are all in the .70 range, and are equal to those of the Raw Color-Word score."
## [132] "Test-retest Reliability: The six test-retest r's, with 6 weeks between administrations, ranged from .45 on identity diffusion to .81 on intimacy, with a median r of .70 (N = 150)."
## [133] "Internal Consistency: Reliability analysis indicated the eight-item scale was highly reliable. For the total sample (N = 303), a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .923 was obtained."
## [134] "Test-retest reliabilities were .54 and .43 for the larger (N = 158) and smaller (N = 76) samples of elderly individuals, respectively."
## [135] "Internal Consistency: Scale reliabilities were impressively high, with an average internal consistency (alpha) of .88 across six samples (total N = 1219)."
## [136] "Since the GEFT is a speed test, an appropriate method of estimating reliability is the correlation between parallel forms with identical time limits. Correlations between the 9-item First Section scores and the 9-item Second Section scores were computed and corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, producing a reliability estimate of .82 for both males (N = 80) and females (N = 97). These reliability estimates compare favorably with those of the EFT."
## [137] "Internal Consistency: In a study following Hurricane Andrew (n = 213), Cronbach's alphas were .84 (intrusion), .72 (avoidance), and .85 (total). In a study of a high-crime, low-income area (n = 71) , Cronbach's alphas were .68 (intrusion), .53 (avoidance), and .73 (total). Interrater Reliability: Interrater reliability on a study of adolescents exposed to a fire with interviewers having undergone 51 hours of training averaged .91."
## [138] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha suggested a high degree of internal consistency (alpha = .86, N = 261)."
## [139] "Internal Consistency: Alpha coefficients for the 12 subscales of the CEM across two administration times (n = 301) ranged from .42 to .95. The total scores had exceptional reliability (.95 and .93, respectively) over both administrations."
## [140] "Internal Consistency: In one group of subjects, coefficient alphas for Form 1 (eyes closed) ranged between .65 and .85 and averaged .76 across the major dimensions. Coefficient alphas for Form 2 (hypnotic induction) ranged between .74 and .85 and averaged .80 across all major dimensions. Pearson correlations for five pairs of duplicate items were .53 for both the eyes-closed (Form 1) and the induction condition (Form 2). Data from 89.9% (n = 195) of the subjects in the eyes-closed condition, and 87.6% (n = 190) in the induction condition had reliability index values of 0 to 2."
## [141] "Internal Consistency: For the whole sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.71 for the experimental version of ChEAT. Test–Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability (Pearson correlation) for the Catalan version of the ChEAT was 0.56 (N = 258)."
## [142] "Internal Consistency: The OBQ-CV total, and all the subscales, demonstrated strong internal consistency (alpha = .96 for the total score, .91 for Responsibility/Threat Estimation, .94 for Perfectionism/ Certainty, and .91 for Importance/Control of Thoughts). Test-Retest Reliability: The stability of the OBQ-CV scores was also supported based on a subset of children (n = 17) that completed the measure twice (retest interval ranged from 2 to 7 weeks). Specifically, significant and strong retest correlations were found for the OBQ-CV total (r = .88) and all three subscales (Responsibility/Threat Estimation, r = .84, Perfectionism/Certainty, r = .81, and Importance/Control of Thoughts, r = .85)."
## [143] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency was very good. Alpha was .94 for the total score, .92 for Responsibility/Threat Estimation, .92 for Perfectionism/Uncertainty, and .87 for Importance/Control of Thoughts. Test-Retest Reliability: The Pearson correlation coefficients for the 3 week test–retest in a non-clinical control subsample (n = 39) were: for the OBQ-44 total score, r = .85; for Responsibility/Threat Estimation, r = .73; for Perfectionism/Uncertainty, r = .88; and for Importance/Control of Thoughts, r = .77."
## [144] "Internal Consistency: High internal consistency for both the Involvement scale (r tt = 0.86, p < 0.01) and the Overtness scale (ru = 0.84, p < 0.01) was found for the lesbian sample (N = 63) using the Spearman-Brown split-half step-up technique with an odd-even split."
## [145] "Internal consistency: As used in a survey based on 206 university students, the Cronbach’s alpha of the short form was 0.819. Test–retest reliability: Assessed with a delay of 11–12 weeks in university students, the correlation was 0.88 (p < 0.001, N = 46) and there were no differences between both scores."
## [146] "Inter-Rater Reliability: Inter-rater reliability demonstrated moderate agreement between primary and secondary caregivers. A number of these coefficients did not reach statistical significance because of the small sample size (n = 26), but only one of the correlations was below .25 (Soothability). Internal Consistency: Low correlations were generally observed among the factors: r=.16 for the first and second factors (Surgency/Extraversion and Negative Emotionality), r=.25 for the first and third factors (Surgency/Extraversion and Orienting/Regulation), r=−.30 for the second and third factors (Negative Emotionality and Orienting/Regulation). Cronbach’s alpha for Surgency/Extraversion was 0.92. Estimates for Negative Affectivity and Orienting/Regulation both equaled 0.91. Alpha values for a group of 3–6 month-olds ranged from .77 to .90, in a group of 6–9 month-olds from .70 to .89, and a group of 9–12 month-olds from .71 to .83."
## [147] "Internal Consistency: The PBPQ demonstrated excellent initial evidence of internal consistency with Cronbach coefficient alphas of .83 at the pretest (n = 26) and .85 at posttest (n = 24)."
## [148] "Interrater Reliability: Each LEAS-C scenario was coded and scored independently of the remaining scenarios. Two raters scored 22 of the protocols. Inter-rater reliability using Pearson’s correlation was, for self-LEAS-C scores, r = .93, for other-LEAS-C scores, r = .86, and for total-LEASC scores, r = .89. Internal Consistency: Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha was alpha = .71 for self scores, alpha = .64 for other-scores, and alpha = .66 for total scores (N = 51)."
## [149] "Internal Consistency: The NA and SI scales were internally consistent (alpha = 0.88/0.86; N = 3678). Test-Retest Reliability: The NA and SI scales were also stable over a 3-month period (test–retest r = 0.72/0.82)."
## [150] "The corrected item-total correlations for the 30 items were all positive and ranged from .22 to .54, indicating that each item has an appropriate association with the total score of the scale. The coefficient alphas were as follows: Total CCS (.87; N = 328); Acceptance, Reframing, and Striving (.85; N = 332); Family Support (.86; N = 335); Religion–Spirituality (.90; N = 338); Avoidance and Detachment (.77; N = 335); and Private Emotional Outlets (.76; N = 336). Test-retest correlations were moderate for the CCS and its factors over a 2-week period."
## [151] "Internal Consistency: Split-half reliability coefficients yielded a mean of r = .78 (p < . 01), indicating good internal consistency. It is not clear, however, if this estimate is for all of the samples studied. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was r = .85 over a 2-month interval (N = 19) and r = .56 over a 7-month interval (N = 50). When analyzed as a function of age, however, test-retest coefficients were significantly different: for fourth-grade children (n = 21) r = .75, and for first-grade children (n = 28) r = .41."
## [152] "The DES score test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.84 (p < .0001, N = 26). Reliability coefficients of the item scores ranged from .19 to .75 with 25 of the 28 items yielding coefficients reaching a significance level of p < 0.05 and 16 of the items reaching a level of p < .001. The median correlation coefficient for item scores was .60."
## [153] "Interrater Reliability: Across the pilot (n = 14) and interviews reported in the current study (N = 50), adherence to procedure and interrater reliability were confirmed with very high reliabilities (.94-.98)."
## [154] "Internal consistency was high across all three time points: Cronbach's standardized item alphas were: session 2, .82 (n = 38 therapists and 75 patients); session 5, .80 (n = 36 therapists and 71 patients); and session 24, .81 (n = 29 therapists and 45 patients)."
## [155] "Interrater reliability was assessed using patient and external observer data for which ratings from all four raters were available (n = 70 for patients, n = 46 for external observers). Results show very good reliability for Hypergraphia, Sexual Interest/Activity, Religious Belief, Verbal Aggression, and Physical Aggression. For Philosophical Interest and Stickiness/Viscosity, marginally adequate reliability estimates were obtained for both patient and external observer data. The reliability estimates for the Circumstantiality variable fall within acceptable limits for external observer data."
## [156] "Internal Consistency: Using college students and high school teachers (N = 172) the reliability of obtained scores for each of the six variables are as follows: feelings, .93; task, .93; community value, .94; other value, .91; control value, .93; and self value, .91. Coefficient alpha for the conflict management score is .96. Test-Retest Reliability: The instrument was given twice, 8 weeks apart, to 51 undergraduates. In the test-retest examination, using Pearson Product Moment correlation, the reliabilities for the six constructs are: feelings, . 74; task, .68; community value, .84; other value, .68; control value, .83; and self value, .64. The reliability for the conflict management score is .76."
## [157] "Internal Consistency: The reliability coefficients of ECQ-P were satisfying. The alpha coefficient was .74, which indicates that the scale has sufficient homogeneity, and the stability coefficient was .78 (n = 71). The average interitem correlation was .24. Item-total correlations varied between .30 (Item 6) and .50 (Item 9)."
## [158] "In a large sample of employees (N = 3251) from various industries and occupations, Cronbach's alpha values for the subscales of this measure ranged from .72-.84; alpha for the Productivity Index was .91."
## [159] "Internal consistency: The alpha reliability coefficients of the three scores were as follows: .95 and .93 for the Positive Scale, School A and B samples, respectively; .93 and .90 for Disruptive; and .85 and .81 for Isolated. Stability: Three administrations of the RCP in School A provided stability data for intervals of 6 and 17 months. Reults indicate that stability correlations (N = 161) were .87, .77, and .80 for the Positive, Disruptive, and Isolated scores, respectively. After 17 months the stability correlations (N = 163) remained robust: .63, .64, and .66, respectively, for the three scores."
## [160] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for the three subscales and for the total AAS. Coefficients ranged from .65 to .86 (Fear of Contagion, a = .65; Negative Emotions, a = .70; Professional Resistance, a = .75; and total AAS, a = .86), suggesting good internal consistency for all subscales and for the total scale. Test-Retest Reliability: The 2-week test-retest reliability of the AAS was established for 102 nursing (n = 47) and medical (n = 55) students. The correlation of AAS scores at 2-week intervals was high (r = .92), suggesting good short-term reliability of the instrument."
## [161] "Test-Retest Reliability: Moon and Wagner (1992) assessed 28-day, test-retest reliability for the CPCS using a small group (n = 10) of girls between the ages of 8 and 17 years. Results revealed 100% test-retest agreement for the categorical preference item and no significant test-retest difference for any of the interval-scale preference and comfort items."
## [162] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the measure's subscales is as follows: trait guilt (coefficient a = .89, mean interitem correlation = .29), state guilt (coefficient a = .84, mean interitem correlation = .34), and moral standards (coefficient a = .88, mean interitem correlation = .33). Test-Retest Reliability: The consistency of the scales over time was assessed by test-retest administrations among student respondents at intervals of 10 weeks (n = 136) and among a subset of this sample (n = 46) who completed the Guilt Inventory a third time after the passage of 36 weeks. The Moral Standards scale was most stable for both the 10-week, r(134) = .81, p < .01, and 36-week, r(44) = .77, p < .01, periods. As expected, for trait guilt, test-retest correlations were higher for both the 10-week, r(134) = .72, p < .01, and the 36-week, r(44) = .75, p < .01, intervals than was the case for state guilt, r(134) = .56, p < .01, and r(44) = .58, p < .01, respectively."
## [163] "In the total sample (n = 158), interitem correlations for the LMSQ ranged from r = .51 to r = .67, with a mean r of .58. Preliminary analysis of the test-retest reliability of the LMSQ score suggest excellent test-retest stability (r = .91) over a 4-month time period. Internal consistency: Cronbach coefficient alpha suggests a high level of internal consistency for the LMSQ (α = .91)."
## [164] "The CBOCI subscales had satisfactory internal consistency in Study 1. For the 15-item CBOCI Obsessions subscale, α .85 for the OCD sample (n = 51) and α = .89 for the total sample (n = 494). For the 12-item CBOCI Compulsions subscale, α = .84 for the OCD sample (n = 54) and α = .89 for the total sample (n = 499). In Study 2, the coefficient alphas of generalizability were .96, .61, and .21 for the first three components. Clearly, the third component did not attain an adequate level of internal consistency to warrant retention. Test–retest stability: Sixty-seven students completed the same questionnaire battery a second time after a 1 month interval. After deletion of missing data, the final sample consisted of 55 students. The CBOCI Obsessions (r = .69), Compulsions (r = .79), and Total Score (r = .77) showed a moderate level of temporal stability."
## [165] "The reliabilities for the Conger-Kanungo (C-K) scale varied from 0.88 to 0.91 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 445 across samples. For the total sample (N = 488), the reliability index was 0.88. The item-total correlations for the 25 items in the C-K scale ranged from 0.25 to 0.66, with an average correlation of 0.44. For the composite C-K scale, the test-retest reliability was 0.69."
## [166] "Internal Consistency: Split-half reliability was calculated for the total sample. For the sexes combined, this was .88 (n = 2,330); for boys .66 (n = 1,260) and for girls .80 (n = 1,070). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was examined on a follow-up sample of 15 boys and 18 girls from the four day-care nurseries/playgroups in the pilot study. The mothers made a second rating of their child 1 year later (within a range of 2 months). For the combined group of boys and girls, the test-retest reliability was .84. When the sexes were analyzed separately, the test-retest reliability was .62 for boys and .66 for girls. The pooled test-retest reliability across the sexes was .64 (n = 33)."
## [167] "Reliability analysis produced an alpha coefficient of 0.88 for the Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy subscale and an alpha coefficient of 0. 75 for the Mathematics Teaching Outcome Expectancy subscale (n = 324)."
## [168] "Internal consistency: Estimates of Cronbach’s alpha were all moderate to good: for CD-General, alpha was .73 (N = 203); for Spirituality, alpha was .76 (N = 207), for CD-Patient alpha was .85 (N = 156), and for the combined scale, alpha was .83 (N = 154). Test-retest reliability: Correlations between scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were based on responses from participants who completed the two measures at least 7 days but no more that 21 days apart. For the General Concern About Death (CD-General) scale, the test-retest correlation was .84 (N= 143); for the Spiritual Concern About Death (CD-Spiritual), the correlation was .89 (N= 143); for the Patient-Related Concern About Death (CD-Patient), the correlation was .83 (N= 116), and for the combined score, the correlation was .89 (N = 116)."
## [169] "The split-half reliability correlation between the aggregated group similarity data matrix (GSM) for odd numbered participants (n = 19) and even numbered participants (n = 18) was high at r = .84, p = .001. The split-half reliability correlation between the GSM for one randomly selected (using a random number table) half of participants (n = 19) and the second randomly selected half of participants (n = 18) was r = .85, p = .001. These split-half reliabilities provide evidence of internal consistency between results for subsets of the data."
## [170] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency reliabilities of the scales, using the entire sample of N = 6,930, ranged from .71 (skill variety and feedback from the job itself) to. 59 (task identity)."
## [171] "Test-Retest Reliability: Two classroom samples with n = 21 and n = 36 yielded 9-10 week test-retest reliability coefficients of .71 and .63 for Total LPC scores; and somewhat lower stability coefficients were reported for the two subscale scores. Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha was high for the entire 22-item scale (.90)."
## [172] "Internal Consistency: Coefficient alpha reliability estimates were .88, .89, and .76, respectively, in this study, and .91, .89, and .78 across all respondents (N = 1,130)."
## [173] "Most item-total correlations were in the moderate range. as was the six-week test-retest reliability for the seven-year-olds (r = .79, n = 60, p < .001)."
## [174] "Internal Consistency: The mean sample-weighted internal consistency reliability was .84 (k = 79, N = 30,623). Test-Retest Reliability: The mean sample-weighted test–retest reliability was .50 (k = 4, N = 746)."
## [175] "Internal Consistency: Item-scale correlations ranged from .43 to .63, suggesting that each item is partially measuring the same underlying construct, but not to such an extent as to be redundant with other items. Cronbach's alpha for the entire six items was .78, suggesting that the LOT exhibits an acceptable level of internal consistency. Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest intervals for four groups were 4 months (N = 96), 12 months (N = 96), 24 months (N = 52), and 28 months (N = 21). As shown in Table 8, the test-retest correlations were .68, .60, .56, and .79, respectively. Taken together, these findings suggest that the LOT-R is fairly stable across time."
## [176] "Internal Consistency: The responses of college students (N = 204) demonstrated only a small loss of reliability from the 32-item Fletcher-Averill scale (.783) to this 12-item scale (.750)."
## [177] "Internal Consistency: Separate split-half reliabilities were calculated for the male (n = 31) and female (n = 29) versions, and reached .47 and .64, respectively."
## [178] "Initial reliability evidence of this measure was evaluated in a pilot study (N= 1000) before inclusion in the final study."
## [179] "Tool Reliability: Cronbach's alpha = .80 for patient scores (n = 93) and .85 for primary caregiver scores (n = 81). The authors note that further testing is needed for interrater reliability."
## [180] "Interrater Reliability: Ten percent of the interviews (n = 6) were double coded, and consistency between the two coders was assessed using the formula: number of agreements per total number of agreements plus disagreements. Intercoder reliability was 87.5%, indicating consistency in categorization by the two coders."
## [181] "Internal Consistency: Coefficient alpha for the 15 CHAOS items was 0.79. Test Stability: A subsample (N = 42) of mothers completed two CHAOS questionnaires with a 12-month interval between the initial and subsequent questionnaires. The test-retest stability correlation for total CHAOS score was 0.74."
## [182] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency within the subscales was good (Cronbach alphas: 0.69 to 0.93). Inter-Rater Reliability: All raters were trained to a reliability of greater than 0.70 using spearman correlation to the scoring key on the training vignettes (Mean = 0.865, n = 16). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was established in order to ensure that the EDS3 was a stable measure over time. Seven raters completed an EDS3 on Vignette #1, and re-completed the measure again 2 weeks later. Results of a correlation analysis (r = .902) revealed excellent test-retest reliability for the EDS3."
## [183] "Reliability alphas for the 10 subscales ranged from .62 to .92. The ASQ alone was administered to a sub-sample of participants (N = 105) 1 week after the initial administration and component scores were calculated for both administrations. Scores at time 1 correlated strongly with those at time 2 for all dimensions of adolescent stress."
## [184] "The alpha coefficients ranged from .75 (Manic/Hyperactive Behavior) to .83 (Social Avoidance), with a mean of .80. These values are within the range acceptable for research purposes. Retest reliability (n = 61) was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with a one-way random effects model. The median length of time between test and retest was 30 days, with a range of 14–90 days. The retest reliability for the full scale was .81, which is considered “excellent” (Cicchetti, 1994). Subscale retest reliability levels ranged from .72 (Manic/Hyperactive Behavior) to .83 (Social Avoidance). The mean subscale retest correlation was .78. These ranged from .45 to .78, which is very high at the item level."
## [185] "Test-Retest Reliability: Reliability was determined using test–retests (r = 0.75, n = 45)."
## [186] "Test–Retest Reliability: Fifteen of the longer duration group completed the time budget on two occasions. Intraclass correlations indicated very good test–retest reliability (r=0.831, n=15, p<0.001). Inter-Rater Reliability: Ten of the longer duration group time budgets were co-rated by one of the other authors (PG). Intraclass correlations revealed excellent reliability (r=0.986, n=10, p<0.001)."
## [187] "Internal Consistency: Alpha coefficients ranged from .79 (Feeding) to .91 (Social/Sleep) for the three factors. Cronbach's alpha was 0.93 for the total score. Test-Retest Reliability: ICC for test–retest scores was 0.98 (n=22, 95%CI 0.96–0.99)."
## [188] "The internal consistency of the test was calculated as Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliabilities of the two variables Alcohol risk and Dissimulation vary between r=0.73 and r=0.79 for the long form and between r=0.72 and r=.076 for the short form. The consistency of measurement of the individual variables is adequately high. The ATV can thus be regarded as a sufficiently precise diagnostic instrument. In both the long and the short form the variables Alcohol risk and Dissimulation correlate very strongly with each other; that is, in both forms the two variables measure the same trait (Alcohol risk: r=0.97; p=0.000; N=100/Honesty: r=0.99; p=0.000; N=98)."
## [189] "The overall (total scale) coefficient alpha was .81. The Attitudes subscale coefficient alpha was .68, and the Behaviors subscale coefficient alpha was .85. Item-total correlations revealed that items on the Attitudes subscale ranged from .27 to .50, with three items loading below .40. Item-total correlations on the Behaviors subscale ranged from .41 to .68. A subsample of individuals (n = 33) completed a 2-week test-retest session, which yielded a reliability coefficient of .84."
## [190] "Test Reliability: Although it has not proved possible to estimate the reliability of the test on a control group, evidence that this is high can be adduced from two independent observations. The interposition of an additional variable-type and extent of operation-will only dilute the reliability and it is likely that under more favourable circumstances the test-retest correlation would be higher than that observed (r = 0-813, P < 0.001, n= 18). The numbers also represent the order of difficulty as determined in the pilot study. The relationship is clearly a close one (tau = 0-87)."
## [191] "This 16-item scale was found to have a coefficient alpha of .81 (M = 26.40, SD = 9.56, n = 332)."
## [192] "Test-Retest Reliability: The results of the test–retest reliability (10-12-week interval) for the SCOPE produced a moderate significant correlation for the total scale (Pearson’s r = .441). Similar significant coefficients were obtained for the two subscales: Pearson’s r = .428 for optimism and Pearson’s r = .553 for protective social network. Internal Consistency: The internal consistency for both factors and the total scale was based on the total sample (n = 286), assessed by coefficient alpha. The internal reliabilities were good for the total scale (alpha = .83) and each subscale: optimism (alpha = .86) and protective social network (alpha = .71)."
## [193] "The internal consistency of the scale proved to be adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = .74), although test-retest reliability (n = 24) was unfortunately relatively weak, r = .40."
## [194] "Item–total reliability scores for Phase 1 nominations were relatively high. The highest item–total correlation was for language arts (r = .81), followed by reading (r = .80), and mathematics (r = .71). Reliability figures for Phase 2 Brief Ratings were also high as measured by item–total correlations, which ranged from .72 to .82, and by Cronbach’s alpha (r = .94). Validity was assessed using a Bayesian conditional probability analysis between Phases 1 and 2. Phases 1 and 2 qualification was a significant indicator of proficiency status, χ2(3, N = 284) = 50.22, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .43."
## [195] "Inter-Rater Reliability: Inter-rater reliability yielded a Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) single measure (3,1) equal to 0.94 and ICC(3,10) average measure of 0.99. ICCs between sites were 0.95 for single items [ICC(3,1)] and 0.99 for total scores [ICC(3,5)]. The within site ICCs for the 3 multi-rater sites (n=2, n=3, n=3) ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for single measures [ICC(3,1)] and from 0.97 to 0.99 for average measures [ICC(3,2/3)]. Internal Consistency: The scale had high internal consistency among the three items (Cronbach's alpha=0.84)."
## [196] "Internal Consistency: An analysis conducted on the 20 IHBS items (n = 392) demonstrated adequate internal consistency (alpha = .84). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .28 to .55. Test-Retest Reliability: IHBS total scores were correlated with retest scores collected after an 18-month interval. A test-retest correlation of .57 (p < .0001) was obtained indicating moderately high stability over this period of time."
## [197] "Cronbach’s alpha for data for the Literacy Activities Rating Scale in the ELLCO Toolkit, Research Edition (n = 262) are: Full-Group Book Reading = .92, Writing = .73, Literacy Activities Rating Scale .66. Additional reliability data are detailed in the Technical Appendix of the User’s Guide to the Early Language & Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit, Research Edition (Smith & Dickinson, 2002)."
## [198] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha tests showed that the SIBAW has excellent internal consistency for the total score (alpha = 0.90), and each of its subscales: subscale 1 (0.92), subscale 2 (0.86), subscale 3 (0.78), and subscale 4 (0.83). Test-Retest Reliability: Retest data from a subsample of participants (n = 20) showed that the SIBAW has good test–retest reliability following a 6–8 week lapse for the total score (r 0.77, p = 0.001), subscale 1 (r = 0.71, p = 0.001), and subscale 2 ( r = 0.52, p = 0.02). However, subscales 3 (r = 0.40, p = 0.08), and 4 (r = 0.34, p = 0.14) were not significantly correlated at retest, which may have been due to the small retest sample size."
## [199] "Analyses show that 8 of 15 scales have internal consistency reliability coefficients greater than 0.60 (Psychiatric Symptoms, Life Satisfaction, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Health-related Disability, Subjective Medication Side Effects, Vitality, Legal Problems, and Mental Health-related Disability). Of these eight scales, six have reliabilities greater than 0.70. The Psychiatric Symptoms scale, which consists of eight items, has the highest internal consistency (0.86), while the lowest is for the Victimization scale (0.38), which is a three-item scale. This finding is consistent with the expectation that internal consistency reliability improves as the number of items increases. One-week test-retest reliability analyses were conducted on the baseline subsample (n = 121) using intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients. The majority of the scales (9 of 15) display substantial reliability with ICCs greater than 0.70."
## [200] "Reliability analysis of the WBC in the current study revealed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=0.68, n=122)."
## [201] "Internal Consistency: Factor analyses were conducted separately using the high-risk group (n = 197) and the low-risk group (n = 102). Congruence reliability (Harman 1976) for corresponding factors was very high for the first three factors (0.93, 0.88, and 0.80) and moderate for the last two (0.56 and 0.42)."
## [202] "Internal Consistency: Assessments of the scales' reliabilities found internal consistency scores using Cronbach's alpha ranged from .75 to .85. Test-Retest Reliability: Four-week test-retest reliabilities (N = 17) ranged from .72 to .86 for each factor."
## [203] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alphas for the entire sample (n = 377). The Cronbach’s alphas were found to be very good: Environmental Invalidations (alpha = .81); Foreigner/Not Belonging (alpha = .78); Sexualization (alpha = .83); Low-Achieving/Undesirable Culture (alpha = .87); Criminality (alpha = .85), and Invisibility (alpha = .89)."
## [204] "The ComFor was tested on a sample of 623 children and adults from the Netherlands and Flanders with a developmental level between 12 and 60 months on the domain of daily living skills. The sample consisted of three subgroups: (1) a group of children and adults with autism and an intellectual disability (N=310), children and adults with an intellectual disability without autism (N=174), and a control group of typically developing children (N=139). The internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha) for the five series ranges from 0.83 to 0.93; for the two levels from 0.95 and 0.94. The inter-rater reliability is very high (the mean Cohen's κ is 0.95). The test-retest reliability (Spearman's r) is 0.98 for the total score. The individual’s top scores are less stable. Also see the test manual: Verpoorten, R., Noens, I., Berckelaer-Onnes, I. van (2008) ComFor; Forerunners in Communication. Manual. Leiden: PITS."
## [205] "Internal consistency: in persons with functional speech (N=658): Cronbach's alpha is .86; in persons without functional speech (N=572:) alpha is .81. Interrater reliability Pearson's r is .83-.89. Stability over a six-month period: r is .81-.86; stability over a fourteen-year period: r is .72. Sensitivity and specificity in persons with MR/ID (N=1230): 92.4 and 92.4 respectively; sensitivity and specificity in persons with borderline intelligence (N=293): 77.3 and 88.5 respectively. Also see the test manual: Kraijer, D.W. (1997, 2006). Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Mental Retardation Scale. Manual. Leiden: PITS."
## [206] "Internal Consistency: Item-total correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.65 for the 29 items. The internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20) of the SPQ-C for children was found to be satisfactory: 0.86 for boys (N = 264), 0.88 for girls (N = 325) and 0.89 for the combined sample of children (N = 589). Internal consistency was also high for the separate age groups (i.e. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 yr), ranging between 0.88 and 0.90. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability (6-7 weeks) was r = 0.49 (P < 0.001) for boys (N = 263), r = 0.58 (P < 0.001) for girls (N = 323) and r = 0.61 (P < 0.001) for the total sample (N = 586). Test-retest reliability calculated for the separate age groups ranged between r = 0.50 and r = 0.70 (P < 0.001)."
## [207] "Internal Consistency: The scales had adequate to good internal consistency in the student sample, Cronbach’s alpha = .88, .79, and .92. In the current clinical sample, internal consistency of SA and SS was solid at all time points, alpha = .83 and .95 (pre); .95, and .96 (post) and .74 and .96 (follow-up). The internal consistency of RS was somewhat lower, alpha = .76, .77, and .78, although in the acceptable range for an experimental measure. Test-Retest Reliability: An examination of test–retest reliability in a smaller sample (n = 60) indicated that SA and SS had acceptable test–retest reliability, r = .76 and .80, respectively. RS was somewhat lower, r = .66, possibly because of the small number of items."
## [208] "In validation samples of OCD patients (n = 99) and mixed neurotics (n = 114), the internal consistency, stability, and reliability of the short form. The test-retest reliability (t = 3 months) in OCD-I ranged from .73 to .94."
## [209] "Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the PABQ Total Scale was in the total group .90 (in the PTSD group .86), indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Internal consistency for the subscales was good. Cronbach’s alpha ‘Visual Reminders’ = .89 (PTSD group = .83); ‘Trauma-related Thoughts = .88 (PTSD group = .82); ‘Agoraphobia’ = .89 (PTSD group = .85); ‘Feeling unsafe at home’ = .84 (PTSD group = .85); ‘Sleep’ = .90 (PTSD group = .89); ‘Social Interaction’ = .87 (PTSD group = .83) and ‘Sensory Reminders’ = .77 (PTSD group = .76). Participants completed the PABQ again after 1–2 weeks. The correlation between the test–retest PABQ Total Scale was .87 in the total group (N = 189, p < .001) and .78 in the PTSD group (N = 26; p < .001), reflecting adequate (short-term) temporal stability. Also, all subscales had adequate test–retest correlations."
## [210] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha was .81 for Form A and .78 for Form B (N = 30)."
## [211] "Thirteen randomly selected sessions (23%) of all the rated sessions (n = 57) were used to establish interrater reliability in the development study. The combined interrater agreement for two pairs of raters was k = .77, p < .001."
## [212] "Test-retest (5 months, N=32 =0.64). Coefficient Alpha =0.97 (N= 169)."
## [213] "The reliability for the PCS was r = .92. The PCS-R had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 (N = 19 items; 9 subscales). The Cronbach’s alpha for the Foundational Competencies subscale of the PCS-R was .76 (N = 10 items), the Cronbach’s alpha for the Functional Competencies subscale was .82 (N = 6 items), and the Cronbach’s alpha for the Continuing Competencies subscale was .65 (N = 3 items)."
## [214] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency reliability (α = .97) estimates of the five scored items assessed in an undergraduate sample (n = 275) have been shown to be high. In the combined adolescent inpatient sample, the total screening score had a high alpha estimate of .94."
## [215] "The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were calculated for each of the four SECS subscales. For AI (N = 131, 10 items) the alpha is 0.87; for A0 (N = 120, 10 items) 0.89; for CAI (N = 130, 10 items) 0.91; and for CA0 (N = 131, 10 items) 0.90. In order to assess the stability over time, the product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the scores of the first and second administration for the four different subscales over an average period of 246 days. For AI, the stability coefficient is 0.65; for AO. 0.76; for CAI 0.63; for CAO, 0.68 (N = 85)."
## [216] "Initial analyses were conducted to confirm the psychometric adequacy of the PVAQ. The mean total score was 47.5 (SD = 13.5, range 21 to 79) and the distribution of total scores did not show significant skew. Subjects (n = 15) who completed the instrument on two occasions attained similar scores (r = .80, p < .001; paired t(14) = 1.67, p = .118) supporting their temporal stability over a short interval. The items demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .86)."
## [217] "Both internal consistency and test-retest analyses were used to estimate the reliability of the MBMD scales. Using the entire sample, the following internal consistency coefficients were obtained: Psychiatric Indications (rtt = .76 to .89); Coping Styles (rtt = .54 to .85); Stress Moderators (rtt = .85 to .89); Treatment Prognostics (rtt = .47 to .80); and Management Guide (rtt = .77 to .79). The median internal consistency coefficient for all scales is rtt = .79. Using a smaller sample (N = 41), test-retest reliability estimates were also obtained: Psychiatric Indications (rtt = .79 to .88); Coping Styles (rtt = .71 to .90); Stress Moderators (rtt = .78 to .92); Treatment Prognostics (rtt = .72 to .88); and Management Guide (rtt = .78 to .81). The median test-retest coefficient for all scales is rtt = .83."
## [218] "Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was used to determine the internal consistency of the various administrations across the participating classes. Analysis revealed high Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for each administration; paper α = .84 (n = 160), online α = .82 (n = 494), and overall α = .82 (n = 654). An examination of each item’s contribution to the scale reliability shows consistency ranging from .807 to .833. No item appeared to show a lack of fit. Reliability results indicate that the ASI SOY instrument may be administered in either paper or electronic format. Cronbach’s alpha reliability indexes were used to determine internal consistency for each of the administration conditions. Results revealed internal consistency for the test (α = .83) and the retest (α = .84). A Pearson correlational analysis was conducted and revealed consistency (r = .995) between the two administrations. These findings add further evidence of the ASI SOY’s reliability."
## [219] "Internal consistency reliability (alpha) was .83. Test-retest reliability was r=.53 (n=61, p<.001, 2-tailed)"
## [220] "The alpha coefficients for the scales are as follows: Diet Information = .77-.76; Exercise Information = 64-.77; Diet Attitudes = .80-.82; Diet Subjective Norms = 85-.91; Exercise Attitudes = 70-.81; Exercise Subjective Norms = .85-.88; Diet Behavioral Skills = .74-.77 and 85-.87; Exercise Behavioral Skills = .70-.77; Food Label Reading = .92-.94; Diet Self-Care = .62-.75; and Exercise Self-Care = 81-.62. The Exercise Self-Care measure showed high test-retest reliability at 3 months (r = .42, p = .006, n =43)."
## [221] "Internal consistency of the PHIVSMS was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. At baseline, the Cronbach’s alpha of the PHIVSMS was 0.78 (n = 121), demonstrating that the measure is sufficiently reliable for research purposes."
## [222] "Analysis of the PII revealed adequate internal consistency, with a participant alpha of r = .82. This consistency estimate indicates that it is acceptable to use the summated index score as a single, global indicator of involvement. In addition, to assess the stability of the measure, a subsample of those participants (n = 60) who returned the PII from the first mailing were sent a second inventory to complete to determine the test-retest reliability. Results of this analysis revealed that test-retest reliability during a period of 2 to 4 weeks produced a Pearson correlation of .96 (p < .01)."
## [223] "Cronbach alphas for the subscales were as follows: Seeking Social Support (alpha = .84), Self-reliance/Problem solving (alpha = .84), Distancing (alpha = .69), Internalizing (alpha = .66), and Externalizing (alpha = .68). Two-week test-retest reliabilities were obtained for approximately half of the sample (n = 215): For Coping With a Poor Grade, they were. 73 for Seeking Social Support, .60 for Problem Solving, .64 for Distancing, .63 for Internalizing, and .69 for Externalizing; for Coping With a Peer Argument, they were . 72 for Seeking Social Support, .64 for Problem Solving, .58 for Distancing, .59 for Internalizing, and .78 for Externalizing."
## [224] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.86 (N = 120)."
## [225] "Internal Consistency: For the subscales, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.79 to 0.96. Test-retest Reliability: The short SMI was administered to a subsample of healthy controls (n = 50) who filled out the short SMI at baseline, and again 4 weeks later, with a maximum deviation of 3 days. The results showed test-retest reliability of the separate modes ranging from .65 to .92, p’s<.001, with a mean of .84. The results were indicative of adequate test-retest reliabilities for all schema modes of the short SMI."
## [226] "Cronbach’s alphas for the secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, separation distress, and global attachment scores were .89, .95, .91, .91, and .96, respectively, for pet dogs (all samples, N = 923); .91, .97, .93, .92, and .97, respectively, for mothers (sample 1, N = 108); .94, .97, .95, and .98, respectively, for fathers (sample 1, N = 102); .88, .95, .93, .94, and .97, respectively, for siblings (sample 1, N = 101); .91, .94, .90, .93, and .96, respectively, for best friends (sample 1, N = 102); and .92, .96, .96, .94, and .98, respectively, for significant others (sample 1, N = 70)."
## [227] "Test-Retest Reliability: Scores on this measure were highly correlated with scores on the same measure at the end of the study, r(N = 171) = .70, p < .001. Correcting this correlation for attenuation due to unreliability (per Hunter&Schmidt, 1990) led to an estimated test-retest correlation of r = .82."
## [228] "Internal Consistency/Test-Retest Reliability: The physical danger and loss of control scales are reported to have high test-retest reliability (r = 0.86) and high internal consistency (r = 0.91) (Telch et al., 1989). As these two scales were originally developed for use in an agoraphobic population it was necessary to demonstrate their psychometric properties in a social phobic group. In an independent sample of social phobics (n = 21), test-retest reliability was found to be satisfactory (physical illness danger--r = 0.76; loss of control danger--r = 0.75) and internal consistency was moderate to high (physical illness danger, alpha = 0.69; loss of control danger, alpha = 0.89)."
## [229] "Internal Consistency: Alphas ranged from .7 to .9 across subscales and studies. Test-Retest Reliability: A subgroup of study participants (N=64) participated in the study twice within a two-month period permitting an examination of the test–retest reliability of the SURPS. Pearson and intra-class correlation coefficients indicated that the relationship between time 1 and time 2 subscale scores were good (coefficients ranged from .68 to .88)."
## [230] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's Alpha for the 12-item scale was estimated to be 0.73 (N=225)."
## [231] "Internal Consistency: The alpha coefficients in these samples were .78 for White Afrikaners at Pretoria University (n = 350), .72 for Africans at Durban University (n = 325), .73 for Indians at Durban University (n = 211), and .76 for White English at the University of the Witwatersrand (n = 165)."
## [232] "In order to assess how well the items in the Yes/No Test measured the construct ‘passive knowledge of vocabulary’, tests of internal consistency were conducted based on raw scores, that is, the number of hits or correct words the test-takers selected. The alpha value for the 120 words (n = 330) was .972, and the Spearman-Brown and Guttman Split-half coefficients were slightly higher: .981 and .979, respectively. The alpha value for the 80 pseudowords was somewhat lower (.878) but still suggests a very high reliability when taking into account raw scores."
## [233] "The internal consistency of the measures was as follows: LANTS self-report scale (alpha = .84; n = 98); LANTS informant behavioural changes subscale (alpha = .82), frequency subscale (alpha = .80); and severity subscale (alpha = .84) (all n = 88). Test–retest reliability of the self-report LANTS was good with the first administration scores (Mdn = 40.5) not significantly different to that of the repeat administration (Mdn = 39.5; z = .42, p > .05, n = 48)."
## [234] "The alpha coefficients obtained for the scale were .70 for White Afrikaners at Pretoria University (n = 349), .44 for Africans at Durban University (n = 323), .60 for Indians at Durban University (n = 210), and .77 for White English at University of the Witwatersrand (n = 165). These coefficients were adequate for a scale of this length in three of the samples but rather low for the African sample. However, the mean interitem correlation in that sample (r = .11) did not suggest a level of unidimensionality too low for the scale to be useable in this sample. For example, with 24 items this scale would have had an internal consistency reliability of .72. Nevertheless, it did mean results for this scale in this sample would have to be interpreted very carefully."
## [235] "Test–Retest Reliability: The Pearson Correlation Coefficients for test–retest reliability, investigated in a sample of N = 47 residents of a drug rehabilitation center and averaged over the investigated seven drug categories, were r=.95 for the abstinence-corrected total duration of regular use, r=.89 for the mean number of consumption days per month of regular use, r=.89 for the mean daily amount, r=.83 for the variability in consumption days per month of regular use, and r=.75 for month variability in daily amount."
## [236] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha across the 60 items which were examined was adequate at .86. Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest reliability of the ER-IAT was also adequate: r = .68 (p < .001, N = 36) across an interval of 3 months."
## [237] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total scale and the 2 subscales ranged from .83 to .89. Test Stability: The test-retest reliability for the overall fear scale was .80 (n = 200), for Factor 1 (Fearful Thoughts Scale) it was .79 (n = 217), and for Factor 2 (Fearful Physical Feelings and Behaviors Scale), .73 (n = 224)."
## [238] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.82, indicating that the internal consistency of the PDI is more than adequate. Test-Retest Reliability. The correlations between the initial and subsequent PDI scores were calculated. Highly significant relationships were found for all scores (PDI yes/no: Spearman's r = 0.78, n = 83, p < 0.001; distress: Spearman's r = 0.81, n = 74, p < 0.001; preoccupation: Spearman's r = 0.81, n = 76, p < 0.001; conviction: Spearman's r = 0.78, n = 70, p < 0.001). These significant relationships confirm the test-retest reliability of the PDI."
## [239] "Internal consistency: Reliability analyses for the seven \"costs\" (expectations of the costs associated with reduced alcohol consumption) produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of .823; interitem correlation showed a mean of .396, with a range of .217 to .666. For the five \"benefits\" (expectations of the benefits associated with reduced alcohol consumption), the Cronbach’s Alpha was .856; interitem correlations ranged from .443 to .672 with a mean of .542. Test-retest reliability: Pearson product moment correlations between the two occasions of administration for each of the following were: Importance (a) items only: r = .900, n = 22; (b) items only: r = .850, n = 23; (c) items only: r = .809, n = 23; and \"Total Score\"(a + b + c items): r = .902, n = 19. This indicated a satisfactory level of test-retest reliability."
## [240] "Interrater reliability: Kendall’s coefficient of agreement was used to determine intersubject agreement (U). Subjects showed only moderate agreement in their choices (U= .44). The obtained values of U for both versions differ significantly from zero, Chi-Squared (45, N = 488) = 9,791.39, p < .01. The authors of the PAQ have shown that the reliability is satisfactory (alpha = .90)."
## [241] "Interrater Reliability: The correlation between interviewer scores and scores obtained by an observer from behind a one-way screen was .95 (N = 35). Test-Retest Reliability: A test-retest correlation of .87 (N = 13) was obtained when an examiner retested the same patients after a seven-week interval."
## [242] "Internal consistency: For the full scale (a = .96), as well as for the subscales (Body: a = .94; Eating: a = .94; Exercise: a = .93). Test-retest reliability: High for the total scale (r = .90), as well as for the subscales (Body Comparison Orientation: r = .85; Eating Comparison Orientation: r = .88; Exercise Comparison Orientation: r = .84) in the full sample of test–retest completers (N = 362)."
## [243] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.93. Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest correlation coefficient (2-week interval) was significant (r = .72, p < .001, n = 40). A paired t test was nonsignificant, t(38) = - 1.57, indicating that the scores did not change significantly between the two assessment points."
## [244] "Internal Consistency: Psychological/ Verbal, Control, and Physical/Sexual Abuse Scales showed high internal consistency, with coefficient alphas of 0.95, 0.87, and 0.89, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliablities conducted on university students (N=62) were moderate to high: Psychological/Verbal (r=0.86); Control (r=0.76); Physical/Sexual (r=0.74); and Negative Life Events (r=0.84)."
## [245] "Internal Consistency: These 12 items had good reliability (Cronbach’s a = 0.85, N = 1194)."
## [246] "Interrater Reliability: In an initial reliability test a sample of psychiatrists, medical doctors and clinical psychologist (N = 30) independently rated 15 patient vignettes that were based on anonymous real case records. Based on this vignette method, a preliminary interrater reliability test yielded an ICC of 0.87 for the whole instrument (one-way random model, single measurements)."
## [247] "The median test–retest reliability (N = 94) for SWAP–II factor scores was .85 after an interval of 4 to 6 months. (Westen et al., 2007)."
## [248] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency coefficient of the scale in a sample of college women was .90. Test-Retest Reliability: The correlation between the responses to the scale at Time 1 and Time 2, administered in Study 2 (N = 23), was r = .82, p < .001. Thus, Fat Talk Scale scores demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability over a five-week time period."
## [249] "Internal Consistency: For Group 1, the internal consistency for the PDEQ-10SRV total score was measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient using the total sample (n = 48): a was 0.79. For Group 2, the internal consistency for the PDEQ-10SRV total score was 0.78. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability of the PDEQ-10SRV was obtained in the Montréal sample using a 20–25 days time interval. The PDEQ-10SRV total score demonstrated satisfactory reliability with a correlation coefficient of .72."
## [250] "Internal consistency: The value of Cronbach’s a for the total item pool (N = 1072) was .916, and for the four domains were .801, .861, .785, and .765, respectively."
## [251] "Internal Consistency: The final 19-item scale was cross-validated on two independent samples of employees in a telecommunications company (N = 95) and a business services organization (N = 133). The alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .84 and .89, respectively."
## [252] "Internal Consistency: For the revised scale (Eckblad et al., 1982), Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.79 both for males (n = 775) and for females (n = 840). The correlation with the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) was −.04 for males (n = 320) and −.22 for females (n = 507). Interrater Reliability: The first author conducted and scored all of the SAS interviews, while a second judge scored 40 SAS interviews (from both Study 1 and Study 3) to compute interrater reliabilities. The Pearson product-moment correlation between the ratings of the two judges on the four global ratings were .92 for overall social adjustment, .88 for leisure adjustment, .85 for familial adjustment, and .85 for academic adjustment. Interrater reliabilities for the constituent items ranged from .77 to .99, with a mean value of .88."
## [253] "Internal Consistency: This 17-item measure demonstrated adequate internal reliability (OB alpha = .69; OV alpha = .74; CB alpha = .66; CV alpha = .83). Test-Retest Reliability: A third pilot study of college students (n = 86, aged 18-20, 48% male) found acceptable 4-week test-retest reliability (r = .84)."
## [254] "Interrater Reliability: Ten percent of the videotapes (n = 8) were selected at random and independently coded by a second rater. These eight students solved 12 compare word problems each resulting in a total of 96 problems. Interrater agreement was calculated as the proportion of agreements between the two raters for the 96 problems. These analyses resulted in interrater agreement of 91% for pattern of behavior, 95% for type of error, and 89% for quality of problem recall. Pearson correlation for numbers of re-readings recorded by each rater was .97."
## [255] "Internal Consistency: Good internal consistency of the AFNS (Cronbach’s alpha 0.74, n = 180) was obtained."
## [256] "Using multiple informants, reliability and validity were established based on a community sample of 227 fourth- and fifth-grade children’s self-report, maternal report (N= 171), and peer ratings of behavior (N = 227). Strong internal consistency was found for the Inhibition scale and moderately strong internal consistency for the Emotion Regulation Coping and Dysregulated-Expression scales."
## [257] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha for each factor for Sample 1 was acceptable at .89 (Rules), .85 (Child’s attraction), .75 (Self-efficacy), .87 (Flexibility), and .88 (Allow Access). For Sample 2 the Cronbach’s alphas were .85, .81, .76, .85, and .84 respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: The intraclass correlations for the Sample 1 test–retest subsample (n = 46) were significant for all factors, indicating excellent agreement between the scores obtained on the two testing occasions (separated by 2 weeks); .83 (Rules); .80 (Self-efficacy); .79 (Flexibility); and .90 (Allow Access). For Child’s Attraction the intraclass correlation was marginally acceptable at .67."
## [258] "Interrater reliability: In a study of undergraduate students, good interrater reliability was found using the Kappa formula (k = 0.66). Internal consistency: In the weight control program attendee sample, internal reliability was investigated and shown to be high for this measure (n = 52; rKK = 0.943)."
## [259] "Internal Consistency: At T1 (Cronbach a = 0.74) and T2 (Cronbach a = 0.78). Test-Retest Reliability: Individual test-retest scores were significantly (P < .001) correlated (n = 344; 72.9% Hispanic; r = 0.80) and classroom test-retest scores were significantly correlated r = 0.66. Surveys were administered less than 2 weeks apart."
## [260] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha for the overall ABII is excellent (alpha = 0.97). The Cronbach's alpha for the social attention, sensory, and behavioural subscales are excellent, with scores of 0.96, 0.93, and 0.97, respectively. Inter-Rater Reliability: The correlation between raters was excellent (k=0.97, p<.001). Test-Retest Reliability: Total ABII Scale scores were found to be very consistent, r=0.98, N=47, p<.001."
## [261] "Internal Consistency: The assertion questionnaire's reliability (r = .86) was obtained using the test-retest method after a 7-day interval (N = 28). Test-Retest Reliability: An intraclass reliability coefficient (r = .83) was obtained using judges' rating of role-plays (N = 32). Self-ratings, repeated after 1 day interval yielded a coefficient of .93 (N = 25)."
## [262] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency coefficients of the scale were .81 and .83 for years 2000 and 2002, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: The 1-year (1999 and 2000) test–retest coefficients of stability of the instrument were also evaluated using a group of students (N = 61) who had twice completed the questionnaire (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2002, chap. 5). DMEQ means of the two test periods were equivalent, and significant coefficients between test–retest scores were found: total score = .60, Open Positive Environment = .63, and Freely Undertaken = .59 (ps < .0001)."
## [263] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha for the three mother's subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.88. For the father's subscales, alphas ranged from 0.80 to 0.89. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability over a 6-week interval (n=109) ranged from 0.54 to 0.66."
## [264] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha for the 21 items of the Patient-Health Care Provider Communication Scale was 0.89. Cronbach’s alpha for the 17 items composing the first factor, Quality Communication, was 0.94 and the Cronbach’s alpha for the five items of the Negative Patient–Health Care Provider Communication factor was 0.73. Test-Retest Reliability: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability of the 21-item PHCPCS was 0.45 (p<0.0001, n=99) over a 2-week period. The ICCs for the Quality Communication and Negative Patient–Health Care Provider Communication subscales were 0.49 (p<0.0001, n=99) and 0.14 (p=0.08, n=99), respectively."
## [265] "Internal Consistency: A professionalism index built with these variables was highly reliable: Cronbach’s Alpha = .82. Inter-Rater Reliability: These three sections were subjected to a content analysis with a high level of reliability between two coders in a pretest (Krippendorff’s Alpha = .89; N = 60) and in a posttest (Krippendorff’s Alpha = .96; N = 70)."
## [266] "In 15 adult samples, the NTBS possessed acceptable interitem reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .78-.87 (median alpha = .81). Furthermore, the highest item–total correlation was typically obtained for the item “I have a strong need to belong,” the most face-valid marker of the construct. An analysis of test–retest reliability (n = 104) revealed a 10-week reliability of .87."
## [267] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha analyses revealed that the four problem-solving items form a reasonably homogeneous scale (alpha = .83), referred to as Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy. The 10 items covering efficacy for maintenance of pleasant events and social interactions also were adequately homogeneous (alpha = .76) to form a single scale, referred to as Self-Care Self-Efficacy. Test-Retest Reliability: Data from a subset of the wait-list control group (N = 39) were used to calculate correlations between pretest and the end of the wait-list period, about 11 weeks later. Over this long test-retest interval, the items held up well (Self-Care Self-Efficacy, r = .675, p < .0001; Problem- Solving Self-Efficacy, r = .683, p < .001)."
## [268] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alphas (N= 910) for the subscale total scores were .69 for F-Under, .84 for F-Over, and .90 for Skep. Test–retest reliability based on a sample of 42 drawn from training workshops ranged from .75 for F-Under, .85 for F-Over, and .81 for Skep over a mean period of 4 weeks. Test–retest reliability using a convenience sample of 30 colleagues ranged from .78 for F-Under, .83 for F-Over, and .79 for Skep over a mean period of 6 weeks."
## [269] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency statistics (Cronbach's alpha) of the organization- and group-level safety climate sub-scales were, respectively, .90 and .92 for the pilot company (n = 1560) and .91 and .93 for the second company (n = 861). The values indicate good scale reliability."
## [270] "Internal Consistency: Alpha reliability of the three items is good (.93). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-re-test after four weeks (N = 30) reliability is .73."
## [271] "Test-Retest Reliability: The scale demonstrated some evidence for test–retest reliability (N = 79 for retest after 1 month; PRD, r = .91, 95% CI [0.86, 0.94]; perceived family social capital, r = .81, 95% CI [0.72, 0.87]."
## [272] "Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater agreement rates for the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) were calculated for each behavior on the CMAI (using either a 0- or 1-point discrepancy) for 3 sets of raters (in 3 units). These averaged .92 (n = 16), .92; and .88."
## [273] "Test-Retest Reliability: Preliminary evidence of test-retest reliability was demonstrated for all three measures in the CFFS based on the intra-class correlation coefficient (n = 33; CASP = 0.94; CAFI = 0.67; CASE = 0.75; p < 0.001). Internal Consistency: High internal consistency was demonstrated for the items on the CASP based on data from participants who responded to all 20 items as applicable (n = 21; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98) and based on data from all participants with non-applicable item scores replaced with their respective mean scores (n = 60; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95)."
## [274] "The RAID-SI yielded good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α= 0.75, n=32) and inter-rater reliability (average weighted κ=0.71, n=11)."
## [275] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales were 0.54 for Autonomy, 0.58 for Control and 0.62 for Impersonal orientation in a sample of women comprised of an intervention group (N = 60) and a control group (N = 55)."
## [276] "Interrater Reliability: The interrater reliability for the KIVS subscales were as follows: expressed violent behavior in childhood r = 0.91, P<.0001 (N= 15); exposure to violence as child r= 0.93, P<. 0001 (N= 15); expressed violent behavior in adulthood r = 0.92, P<.0001 (N= 15); and exposure to violence as adult r=0.95, P<.0001 (N=15)."
## [277] "Internal Consistency: Across all scales and samples, alphas ranged from .73 (SNAP Introversion in the college validation sample) to .88 (SNAP Neuroticism in the full derivation sample). Test-Retest Reliability: Retest correlations (n = 270; M retest interval = 49.3 days, range = 7–131 days) ranged from .82 (SNAP Antagonism) to .90 (SNAP Conscientiousness), with a median of .85."
## [278] "Inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability: Inter-rater reliability was assessed in a group of 32 random subjects using kappa coefficients for categorical variables and correlation coefficients for continuous variables. Ratings were based on a single interview with one clinician administering the SCI-PG and another observing. Test–retest reliability was assessed in 36 random subjects using kappa coefficients for categorical variables and correlation coefficients for continuous variables with a second rater administering the SCI-PG at the second visit before pharmacotherapy initiation, in a period of less than one week. Inter-rater reliability (kappa = 1.00; n= 32; P≤0.001) and test-retest reliability (kappa = 1.00; n = 36; P≤0.001) were determined for the diagnosis of PG versus non-PG using the SCI-PG. Test–retest reliability was also examined on the total number of PG criteria endorsed (r = 0.97; n = 36; P= 0.006)."
## [279] "Interrater Reliability: Approximately 25% (n = 45) of the videos were rated by both coders for reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficients were satisfactory for emotional responsiveness (0.77), intrusiveness (0.81), negativity (0.88), and child’s negative mood (0.86)."
## [280] "Internal and Test-Retest Reliability: The scale has high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha=.949), as well as good test-retest stability, which was checked in a subsample (n=74; r=.734; p<.01)."
## [281] "Internal Consistency: Results of the Cronbach-alpha reliability coefficients of the perceived husband’s violent attributes scale were 0.92 and 0.89 in the pilot study and for the main study (n = 316), respectively."
## [282] "Internal Consistency: The reliability for social networking sites (n = 74) was alpha = .93, for YouTube alpha = .84, and for weblogs (n = 23) alpha = .83."
## [283] "Construct Validity: Chi-square test with equivalent expected values revealed significant differences for transformational leadership, X2(2, N = 35) = 35.37, p < .01; pseudo-transformational leadership, X2(3, N = 34) = 30.24, p < .01; and laissez-faire leadership, X2(4, N = 35) = 30.00, p < .01."
## [284] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency estimate of Cronbach's alpha showed alpha = .83 (N = 306). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was assessed in an independent sample of female graduate counseling psychology students (n = 43) with a 4-week interval between testing and revealed r = .81."
## [285] "Test-retest reliability: The TAQ was administered to the same informants on two occasions, 2 weeks apart to assess test–retest reliability (ranging from .87 to .84). Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.60 to 0.90 (mean 0.75). Inter-rater reliability: For the purpose of assessing inter-rater reliability each questionnaire was completed independently by two parents/carers of the participants, within a 7-day window (n = 125). Item level inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.31 to 0.75 (mean 0.56). Inter-rater reliability ranged from .70 to .78 across samples. Internal consistency: Internal consistency was evaluated at full-scale (alphas ranging from .833 to .947) and sub-scale level for the mobile, verbal; mobile, nonverbal; and immobile (verbal or non-verbal) participants separately (Overactivity subscale alphas ranging from .793 to .936; Impulsivity subscale alphas ranging from .766 to .920; and Impulsive Speech subscale alphas ranging from .732 to .803)."
## [286] "Internal Consistency: Using expert ratings, high internal consistency between items resulted for the Treatment-Specific Skills (TSS) subscale (alpha = .886, N = 97), and General Skills (GS) subscale (alpha = .896, N = 187). Interrater Reliability: Two blinded ratings on the same individual treatment sessions were obtained for some individual Activity Programme sessions, showing moderate agreement between experts: ICC(2,3) = .603, N = 44 for TSS and ICC(2,3) = .637, N = 44 on GS."
## [287] "Internal Consistency: General DS_R Hebrew reliability score was found to be acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79) in a large heterogeneous Israeli sample (N = 1427)."
## [288] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of responses on all items in the RBQ-2 was high (Cronbach's alpha = .85). The internal consistencies for the four repetitive behaviour subscales were also acceptable (Repetitive Movements–alpha = .80, n = 648; Rigidity–alpha = .75, n = 671; Preoccupations–alpha = .72, n = 618; Sensory Interest–alpha = .66, n = 661)."
## [289] "Internal Consistency: A pilot test (N = 292) indicated adequate internal consistency (alpha = .76)."
## [290] "Reliability of the MJS was assessed via internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951) for the Care and Justice scales, with the exclusion of the three equivocal items (Gump, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha for the Care scale was .75 and .64 for the Justice scale, indicating adequate reliability. Split-half reliability: Care scale, the correlation between halves was r = .72, p < .01; using Kuder-Richardson formula 20, the result was r = .91, indicating adequate reliability. For the Justice scale, the correlation between halves was r = .60; the Kuder-Richardson result was r = .75, suggesting acceptable reliability. Test-retest reliability at approximately 14 days was acceptable for the full scales: r = .61, p < .05 for care; r = .69, p < .05 for justice (N = 16) (Gump, 1994)."
## [291] "An initial examination of the MRNI-A conducted in Scotland (n = 271) revealed that the MRNI-A demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.89). A second, ongoing study of the reliability and validity of the MRNI-A has yielded higher estimates of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .910 for girls and .930 for boys)."
## [292] "Internal Consistency: The Internal Shame and Self-Esteem subscales present high internal consistency, with high Cronbach' alphas (.95 and .85, respectively) and moderate to high item-total correlations. Test-Retest Reliability: In regard to temporal reliability, ISS_S retest presented a Cronbach alpha of .97. Pearson correlation between test and retest (N = 35) was .95 (p < .001) (N = 35) in a period of 4 to 6 weeks."
## [293] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency for each of the factor-derived scales was excellent/good (Factor 1: alpha = .91; Factor 2: alpha = .84). Internal consistency for the YAPFAQ full scale was excellent at alpha = .92. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was assessed using a subset of participants (n = 20) who repeated the YAPFAQ 2 hours after initial administration. Strong test-retest reliability was found using a Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = .82, P < .001)."
## [294] "The internal reliability of the preliminary 52-item scale was 0.93 (Cronbach's alpha coefficient). A sub-sample of 26 schizophrenia patients (including most patients with moderate to severe positive FTD) was studied 12 months later. These patients exhibited stable levels of positive FTD over time (Pearson Correlation=0.973; P=0.000; two-tailed; N=26) as well as stable scores on the FTD-patient scale (Pearson Correlation=0.720; P=0.000; two-tailed; N=26), which suggests test–retest reliability."
## [295] "Internal Consistency/Test-Retest Reliability (6-week gap): For the overall scale, coefficient alpha was 0.90 and the test–retest reliability coefficient was r = 0.92 (N = 16, P < 0.05). The five subscales of the ISMI showed the following levels of internal consistency and test–retest reliability: Alienation, 0.79, 0.68; Stereotype Endorsement, 0.72, 0.94; Discrimination Experience, 0.75, 0.89; Social Withdrawal, 0.80, 0.89; Stigma Resistance, 0.58, 0.80."
## [296] "Test–retest Reliability: Participants (N=48, 62% female) completed the scale on 2 occasions within a 2-week interval. The second session also included the Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Test–retest correlations were shown to be high, with an overall score of 0.89. The domains displayed correlations of 0.78 (spending), 0.90 (eating). Also, social desirability was not correlated with the overall RTF score (r = 0.02, p > 0.89), or either domain score (r_eating = 0.02, p > 0.88; r_spending = 0.00, p > 0.94)."
## [297] "Internal consistency: The coefficient alpha of the three item-scores was .79. Test-retest reliability: The teacher support questionnaire was administered again in the Hong Kong subsample (n=100) 6 months later. The test–retest reliability was .54 (p<.001)."
## [298] "Internal Consistency: The OPIS revealed high internal consistency in the different samples. Cronbach’s alpha in the OCD group was 0.82, 0.91 in the MD group, .88 in the control group, and .88 in the overall sample. Test-Retest Reliability: In the control group, the test-retest reliability with an interval of 2 weeks between measurements was 0.74 (p < 0.001; n = 47)."
## [299] "Test-retest reliability: The results of the test–retest reliability indicated that there was good consistency between instruments. The correlation of scores for the two administrations of the instrument for the monolingual English group was r = .89 (n = 15, p < .001), and for the monolingual Portuguese group, the score was r = .98 (n = 15, p < .001). The couples whose primary language was Portuguese had a correlation coefficient of r = .76 (n = 20, p < .001), and those whose primary language was English scored r = .80 (n = 18, p < .001). Each of the test–retest outcomes showed adequate consistency between test administrations. Internal consistency: In individuals in the Brazil community family development study, the alpha score for the complete RDAS-P was alpha = .822. The alpha score for women in the field testing was .847, and for men, the alpha score was .802."
## [300] "Internal consistency: The measure had a Cronbach's alpha of .753 for the first half of the data set of older adults (n=300) and alpha for the second half of the data set (n=300) was .794, and alpha for the total data set (N = 600) was .778. Reliabilities of each of the 3 components yielded the following: Component 1 with seven items had an alpha of .697, Component 2 with six items had an alpha .527, and Component 3 with eight items had an alpha of .615. In a validation assessment sample of community-dwelling older adults, the MSU CAM Health Literacy Scale responses had a Cronbach's alpha of .731, and the Newest Vital Sign, an alpha of .623."
## [301] "Internal consistency: The internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha in each of the primary scales and composite scales. The values were high, especially in the scales directly related with eating behaviors (alphaDT = 0.92; alphaB = 0.90; alphaBD = 0.92). The internal consistency indices in the psychological scales were somewhat lower, ranging from 0.75 in the Perfectionism scale to 0.93 in the Interpersonal Insecurity Scale. Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability was estimated in a small sample (N = 33) of patients not equally composed of all four diagnostic categories. The stability of scores over 15 days for this sample was very high with coefficients ranging from 0.85 (Emotional Dysregulation) to 0.99 (Eating Disorder Risk Composite)."
## [302] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency of the 20-item FFCSE Scale was assessed at 2 time points. At time 1 (N = 277) alpha was .90, and at time 2 (N = 304) alpha was .92. The Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient was .84 at time 1 and .88 at time 2. These results suggest that the measure has good internal consistency. Test-Retest Reliability: The authors also examined test-retest reliability of time 1 and time 2 responses on the FFCSE Scale with the sample of 184 participants who completed the measure at both time points. The obtained test retest coefficient was .48, which is consistent with the perspective that CSE is a state-dependent variable, not a stable personality trait (Bandura, 1997)."
## [303] "Internal and Test-Retest Reliability: A pilot study (N = 42) indicated that this scale possesses internal consistency (α = .82) and 1-week test-retest reliability (r = .87)."
## [304] "Test-Retest Reliability: Adult participants (n = 146) in the Polish arm of the ongoing Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study completed FFQs on two occasions. Reproducibility was assessed by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). When assessing repeatability, ICC varied from 0.39–0.63 in an urban setting and 0.19–0.45 in a rural setting."
## [305] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha among items 5-8 of the RIBS was 0.82 and removal of any item did not increase the α value to greater than 0.85, indicating good internal consistency. The item-total correlations were ≥0.74 for all the items. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability separated by one week was 0.68, P < 0.001, n = 79). This indicates that the scale was stable over this time period."
## [306] "Internal Consistency: Data from a sample of Hong Kong college students (N = 256) revealed internal consistencies of the eight subtests (Fear of one's own dying, Fear of one's own dying, Fear of another person's dying, Fear of another person's death, Fear of corpses, Acceptance of one's own dying and death, Acceptance of another person's death, and Rejection of one's own death) between .68 and .91."
## [307] "Internal and Test-Retest Reliability: Psychometric analysis found that the CMCAS had good internal reliability (alpha = 0.82, n = 178) and good 2-week test-retest reliability (r = 0.93, n = 12)."
## [308] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha for the 29-item version of the Early Stage Chronic Kidney Disease Self-Management Instrument (CKD-SM) total scale was 0.95. The subscale coefficient alphas ranged from 0.77–0.93. Test-retest Reliability: The stability of the CKD-SM was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient for measuring 2-week test–retest reliability. The test–retest correlations for the CKD-SM was 0.72 (p < 0.001, n = 26)."
## [309] "Internal Consistency: Coefficient alphas across four studies ranged from .94 to .96. Test-Retest Reliability: The CETSCALE was administered on two occasions separated by a 5-week period. The correlation between these two administrations was r = .77 (n = 138; p < .001)."
## [310] "Internal Consistency: The alpha coefficients for the ABID frequency and reaction ratings (n = 149) were 0.89 (95% CI = 0.87–0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.90–0.94), respectively. These scores showed an excellent internal consistency for the total scores. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability (n = 70) of the ABID frequency and reaction ratings after 1 month showed an excellent external reliability, with a correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75–0.96) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.82–0.93), respectively."
## [311] "Internal Consistency: The overall alpha was .85. The alpha for the 10 domains across the Self-Theory Scale was 0.73.The alphas for each of the ten domains were as follows: Physical Appearance = 0.70; Physical Health = 0.78; Intelligence = 0.66; Academic Performance = 0.73; Occupational Performance = 0.59; Leisure Activity = 0.78; Personality = 0.60; Family = 0.79; Intimate Relationships = 0.79; and Friendships = 0.79. Test-Retest Reliability (6-week latency): Overall reliability was .70 (N = 83, p < .001). Test-retest reliabilities for the domains were: Physical Appearance r(81) = 0.70 (p = .004); Physical Health r(81) = 0.83 (p < .001); Intelligence r(81) = 0.76 (p < .001); Academic Performance r(81) = 0.40 (p < .001); Occupational Performance r(72) = 0.36 (p = .002); Leisure Activities r(81) = 0.67 (p < .001); Personality r(81) = 0.67 (p < .001); Family r(81) = 0.71 (p < .001); Intimate Relationships r(68) = 0.72 (p < .001); and Friendships r(81) = 0.68 (p < .001)."
## [312] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha of the 8 consequences items was 0.67 for the merged sample, slightly less than the recommended cut-off of 0.70. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability was assessed by calculating coefficients of stability for the participants who completed the HDGM at 3 and 6 (n = 128) and 6 and 9 (n = 131) month assessments. Results indicated positive and moderate correlations among drinking game (DG) frequency, DG typical drinks, time spent playing games, and DG consequences. Supplemental analyses revealed comparable direction and strength of the correlations for peak blood alcohol level (BAC), typical BAC, frequency of drinking, drinks per week, and the summary scores on the Brief-Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (B-YAACQ; Kahler, Strong, & Read, 2005) (Borsari et al., 2014)."
## [313] "Internal Consistency: A person (family) reliability index of .87 suggested excellent internal consistency. test–Retest Reliability: Considering all Time 1 versus Time 2 (n = 39) pairs, the intraclass correlation is .72, indicating moderate to good test–retest reliability."
## [314] "Interrater Reliability: Interrater reliability for the TPOCS–A child and parent forms was calculated using intraclass correlations (ICCs) (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) on the basis of taped therapy sessions. It was found that Interrater reliability was acceptable (i.e., at least .40; see Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981) for the child and parent items. Scale Interdependence: The correlation between the child and parent forms was -.03 (n = 19, ns), suggesting that child and parent alliance were independent. Internal Consistency: Internal consistency of the child form was acceptable for the full sample (alpha = .95), early alliance (i.e., average of first two sessions; alpha = .93), and late alliance (i.e., average of last two sessions; alpha = .91). With regard to the parent form, internal consistency was acceptable for the full sample (alpha = .89), early alliance (alpha = .87), and late alliance (alpha = .79)."
## [315] "Reliability of the ONID was evaluated by a sample of the healthy elderly (n = 19), formally assessed by the same initial health protocol, were re-evaluated 1 year later and documented to be nondemented. Test-retest correlations demonstrated ONID self-reports of both present and past behaviors to be unchanged in a 1-year interval (“Present” r = .57, P < .01; “Past” r = .63, P < .003)."
## [316] "Reliability was evaluated in two ways. First, the internal reliability of the instrument was computed using Cronbach's alpha. The computed alpha coefficient was 0.85 on the pre-class items and 0.83 on the post-class items. Second, two sets of similar questions were compared. The correlation of Item 3 to Item 11 and the correlation of Item 8 to Item 13 were computed. These item pairs were chosen because the contents of the item pairs are somewhat similar, though not exactly the same. Item 3 inquires about a sense of positive connection to the child and Item 11 asks whether the parent enjoys and interacts positively with the child. Item 8 inquires about slapping or hitting a child and Item 13 inquires about spanking. The correlation of Item 3 to 11 was r = 0.65 on the pre-class responses and r = 0.61 on the post-class responses (ps < .0001, n = 1,274). The correlation of Item 8 to 13 was r = 0.47 for pre-class responses and r = 0.50 for post-class responses (ps<.0001, n= 1,273)."
## [317] "In the non-clinical group (n = 569), Cronbach’s alpha for overall scale and three subscales are listed as follows: overall OBQ-44, alpha = 0.954; RT, alpha = 0.902; PC, alpha = 0.889; ICT, alpha = 0.840. For the clinical group (n = 66), Cronbach’s alpha for overall scale and three subscales are listed as follows: overall OBQ-44, alpha = 0.962; RT, alpha = 0.930; PC, alpha = 0.917; ICT, alpha = 0.869. All revealed a very good consistency. For the non-clinical sample (n = 371), the coefficients of test-retest correlation are 0.709 for RT, 0.729 for PC, 0.635 for ICT, and 0.786 for the whole scale. Moreover, for the clinical sample (n = 23), the coefficients of test-retest correlation are 0.752 for RT, 0.745 for PC, 0.653 for ICT, and 0.723 for the scale. All test-retest correlations were significant, which indicates OBQ-44 has ad- equate levels of stability for a measurement."
## [318] "Rater Agreement: To determine the level of agreement across raters for negligence and accident, the authors treated raters as items and calculated agreement (Cronbach's alpha) across the 24 scenarios for accident ratings alone (alpha = .99), negligence ratings alone (alpha = .99), and for accident and negligence combined (alpha = .99). However, because alpha increases as a function of the number of items included (in this case, 204 raters), the authors also computed alpha separately for four randomly drawn samples of size n = 8 for accident and negligence ratings, as well as for both ratings together. For accident ratings alone, across the four samples, the average alpha = .90 (SD = 0.03), and the average corrected rater–total correlation was equal to .74 (SD = 0.11). For negligence ratings, average alpha = .93 (SD = 0.01; average rater–total r = .78, SD = 0.10). Across all ratings, the average alpha = .90 (SD = 0.01; average rater–total r = .71, SD = 0.10)."
## [319] "Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.90 for both the pilot (n = 88) and construct validity (n = 170) samples."
## [320] "Internal Reliability: The Cronbach's alpha of score was 0.847. Test–Retest Reliability: A Pearson correlation was run between the initial test scores and the retest scores taken a week later. The analysis showed a strong significant correlation between the initial scores and the retest scores (r = 0.752, N = 232, p < 0.01)."
## [321] "Test-Retest Reliability: Although data bearing on the validity of self-reports on the GAQ scale items were not presented by the authors, test-retest reliability coefficients obtained with a sample of introductory psychology students (n = 44) were as follows: .67 (perceived level of information), .42 (perceived danger), .48 (perceived general value), .68 (perceived personal value), .25 (perceived appropriateness), and .74 (participation interest)."
## [322] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the CETPI in the total sample (N = 150) was 0.93. All of the three factors yielded good internal consistency estimates ranging from 0.88 to 0.90."
## [323] "In an independent sample of 192 mechanics who were rated by two supervisors. Alphas were .96 for that sample and .94 for the main sample (N = 975)."
## [324] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency of the 26-item FASRAT was high, without indicating excessive redundancy (alpha coefficient = 0.88, n = 70 based on listwise deletion), with all items having corrected item-total correlations greater than 0.25."
## [325] "Internal consistency: PSI was 0.86. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85 for the subjects that had no missing data for tasks (n = 61). Interrater reliability: the authors note that multiple raters would have increased confidence in results."
## [326] "Internal Consistency: The reliability for the PPGR was Cronbach alpha = .63 (n = 106)."
## [327] "Internal Consistency: Alpha reliability in the main study sample was 0.78. Test-Retest Reliability: In the Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS) pilot study conducted on a small adult sample (n = 66), test–retest reliability was ICC = 0.62."
## [328] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency for OMCI was high with an alpha of 0.886 for total score, 0.829 for mother score and 0.780 for child score. Interrater Reliability: Inter-observer reliability between experts on 154 filmed interactions suggested a significant high correlation on total score: (r = 0.851, P < 0.001, n = 154), mother score (r = 0.790, P < 0.001, n = 154) and child score (r = 0.842, P < 0.001, n = 154)."
## [329] "Internal Consistency: In four samples (Study 1 [N= 73], Study 2 [N=302], Study 3 [N=184], Study 4 [N=300]), the Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .89 and .88, .90 and .89, .94 and .90, and .92 and .89, respectively."
## [330] "Cronbach's alpha for the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale was .85. Test-retest reliability (N = 287), computed with an average of 15.2 days between administrations (range = 9 to 30, SD = 4.28) was .81."
## [331] "Internal consistency of the instrument was high for the total sample (ɑ = .926) and the high-functioning group (ɑ = .940). The internal consistency for each subscale is listed by total sample, followed by high-functioning group sample, respectively: Social reciprocity (ɑ = .921, .900), Social participation/avoidance (ɑ = .891, .893), and Detrimental social behaviors (ɑ = .848, .845). Test-retest reliability was .904 for the total sample ( n = 254), .902 for the high-functioning group (n = 176), and .878. The test-retest reliability for each subscale is listed by total sample, followed by high-functioning group sample, respectively: Social reciprocity (ɑ = .89, .86), Social participation/avoidance (ɑ = .86, .82), and Detrimental social behaviors (ɑ = .84, .83)."
## [332] "A reliability analysis showed that corrected item–total correlations ranged from 0.31 to 0.62, with the removal of PSQ item 7 increasing the alpha coefficient substantially from 0.56 (with item 7 included in the data set) to 0.84. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.59 was obtained for the eight PSQ items (0.78 for the PSQ with item 7 removed). In the study of Broadbent et al. using a clinical sample of psychotherapy patients attending a CAT clinic (N = 52), the eight item version of the PSQ showed an alpha coefficient of 0.77 and with a BPD sample (N = 24) a coefficient of 0.87 was achieved. Test–retest reliability assessed using the group of students and CAT practitioners (N = 29) of Broadbent et al. after a six week period indicated that the PSQ was stable across time with a correlation of 0.75."
## [333] "Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subsample (n = 46). All questions had substantial to perfect test-retest reliability (kappa’s > 0.60), except for separation sidewalk-cycling path (kappa = 0.51) and overall upkeep (kappa = 0.45), which had moderate reliability."
## [334] "Test-retest reliability was established by administering the questionnaire to a group of adults from the community sample (n = 51) on two occasions, one week apart. Reliability was high (r=0.91). Internal consistency was calculated for the entire sample and for each of the three groups. Cronbach's alpha was greater than 0.90 for all analyses."
## [335] "Items were merged to create a measure of Positive Effort Beliefs (alpha = .79, M = 4.66, SD5 = .89). The test–retest reliability for this measure over a 2-week period was .82 (N = 52)."
## [336] "Internal Reliability: The Cronbach's alpha was .84. Test-Retest Reliability: The resulting intraclass correlation (ANOVA estimate of reliability) was .69 (n = 15, p = .004)."
## [337] "Cronbach’s alpha was found to be good for the Cognitive Sensitivity Index (N = 11; alpha = .89). Item–total correlations ranged from .43 to .79. Interrater reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha by double-coding a minimum of 10% of the videos and revealed good agreement for younger siblings (alpha = .88) and acceptable agreement for older siblings (alpha = .72)."
## [338] "Reliability analysis of the three factors yielded the following Cronbach's alphas: Warmth (Parental Standards, alpha = .86; Perceived Behavior, alpha = .86 ); Agonism (Parental Standards, alpha = .88; Perceived Behavior, alpha = .73); and Rivalry/Competition scale (Parental Standards, alpha = .81; Perceived Behavior, alpha = .76). Test-retest reliability was evaluated with 25% of the sample (n = 29) who completed the PEPC-SRQ on two occasions spaced 3 months apart. Scores for Parental Standards of Warmth, Agonism, and Rivalry/Competition correlated .74, .86, and .77, respectively, across the two time points. Test-retest correlations for Perceived Behavior were .71 for Warmth, .47 for Agonism, and .37 for Rivalry/Competition (all ps < .05). The authors note that the marginal test-retest reliability of perceived Rivalry/Competition suggests that the results for this scale should be interpreted cautiously."
## [339] "Across the entire sample, a medium correlation between Sharing and Helping was found, Pearson’s r=.44, p<.001, N=196. Remarkably, Sharing and Helping correlated somewhat higher with Moral Courage, Pearson’s correlations of .24 and .29, respectively, relative to Altruistic Punishment, Pearson’s correlations of .16 and -.00, respectively. Moral Courage and Altruistic Punishment showed only small albeit significant intercorrelation, Pearson’s correlation r=.17, p<.02, N=196."
## [340] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alphas for the Cognitive and Emotional demand scales in a Dutch internet sample (N = 3,382) were .90 and .81, respectively."
## [341] "Interrater Reliability: The overlap between the children who were assessed using teacher reports and peer/self-reports of bullying involvement was n = 907. In 66% of the cases, there was an exact agreement between the teachers and peers on whether children were involved in bullying, and the k value (k = 0.32, n = 907) demonstrated a fair interrater agreement."
## [342] "Test-Retest Reliability: Of the 94 participants, 13.8% (N = 13) accepted to come back to the memory clinic and underwent a second e-CT test (average time between assessments = 56 days, range: 4-118 days). The coefficient of correlation (r) between the first and second e-CT scores was 0.89 (p < 0.001)."
## [343] "The Health Care Discrimination Scale (HCDS) was found to have acceptable reliability for a new instrument (N = 218, 12 items; alpha = .78). Cronbach's alphas for the Health Care Cultural Safety (HCCS) and Patient/Family Cultural Needs (HCPF) subscales were .87 and .66, respectively. The test-retest coefficient was determined using Pearson Product Moment Correlation r = .98, which indicated a very high estimate of stability."
## [344] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was .73 (Closeness), .80 (Depend), and .87 (Anxiety). A test-retest analysis was performed with a subsample of participants that completed the scale 60 days after the initial application (n = 30), indicating significant and high levels of temporal stability for all subscales (correlation coefficients ranged from .57 to .74)."
## [345] "Internal Consistency: The four split-half correlations between odd and even scores, applying Spearman-Brown corrections, proved to be moderate and significant for three of the trial types: Failure–negative, r = .419, n = 60, p = .024; Failure–positive, r = .459, n = 60, p = .011; Success–negative, r = .464, n = 60, p = .009. The internal reliability for the Success–positive trial type was non-significant, r = -.09, n = 60, p = .51."
## [346] "Internal Consistency: In two samples of Amazon.com Mechanical Turk workers (N = 1388 and N = 1419), alpha reliability was 0.85 and 0.84, respectively. In two samples of public university undergraduate students (N = 995 and N = 956), alpha reliability was 0.85 and 0.83, respectively."
## [347] "Internal Consistency: Reliability of the treatment items, using Cronbach’s alpha, was alpha = 0.56 for the sample of patients (n = 6), alpha = 0.82 for parents (n = 13), and alpha = 0.81 for medical record data from healthcare providers (n = 11)."
## [348] "Test-Retest Reliability: A subset of parents and teachers (N = 44) reliably reported the Behaviors domain of the STI (correlations ranged from .85 to .90). Test-retest reliability was moderate for both the Injuries (.70) and Symptoms domains (.60 to .64). Internal Consistency: Values for coefficient alpha were high for Behavior and Symptoms (alphas = .95 and .98, respectively). The coefficient value for Injuries was, as expected, below the traditional .70 cutoff (alpha = .63)."
## [349] "Internal Consistency: In a sample of fourth-grade students (N = 200) in the U. S., the Cronbach's alpha for the nine items was .87. In the sample of teachers, the Cronbach's alpha for the three items was .76."
## [350] "Inter-Rater Reliability: Persons with clinically significant health anxiety (n = 52) and healthy controls (n = 52) were interviewed using the HPDI. Diagnoses were then compared with those made by an independent assessor, who listened to audio recordings of the interviews. Ratings generally indicated moderate to almost perfect inter-rater agreement, as illustrated by an overall Cohen's κ of .85. Disagreements primarily concerned (a) the severity of somatic symptoms, (b) the differential diagnosis of panic disorder, and (c) somatic symptom disorder (SSD) specifiers."
## [351] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's α was .79. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability (n = 14) was .78, which was highly significant (p = .001)."
## [352] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.79 for the overall sample and ranged from 0.71 to 0.86 for the four subsamples (children, early adolescents, adolescents, and emerging adults). Interrater Reliability: Two raters who were blind to both aims and the design of the study were asked to score a randomly selected sample of the drawings (n = 330, 14.9% of the sample) to assess the interrater reliability of the Test for Creative Thinking--Drawing Production; Chinese Version. The interrater correlation coefficients that were obtained for the Test for Creative Thinking--Drawing Production; Chinese Version scores were generally good, with r ranging between 0.67 to 0.98."
## [353] "Interrater and Test-Retest Reliability: Analysis of reliability showed overall high values of percentage agreement (≥ 70) and of the rank-order agreement coefficient (r > 0.82), and low degrees of systematic disagreement in a sample of Swedish geriatric rehabilitation patients (n = 20–25)."
## [354] "Inter-rater Reliability: Reliability for the synchrony coding scheme was determined by having a second coder independently code 24% of the videotapes for mothers and 24% of the videotapes for fathers. Kappa computed between the two coders' ratings of mother–toddler dyads (n=31) across intervals resulted in κ = 0.83 for interactional synchrony. Kappa between the two coders' ratings of father–toddler dyads (n=21) across intervals resulted in κ = 0.86 for interactional synchrony."
## [355] "Temporal stability was examined by using only those ratings by peers who rated the same child at both time points (n = 46). The correlation was .61 (p < .001), suggesting adequate stability when children are rated by the same peer. LTRS-Average and LTRS-Highest scores without regard to whether raters differed at the two time points were also examined. Scores from Time1 and Time2 were significantly correlated for both LTRS-Average (r = .36, p < .001) and LTRS Highest (r = .50, p < .001) scores. Although moderate, these correlations would suggest reasonable temporal stability given the length of time between assessments (4 months) and differences in lunchroom seating policies across schools."
## [356] "Internal Consistency: Reliability was α = .92 in a sample of Korean college students (N = 143)."
## [357] "Reliability: The Cronbach's alpha for negative a positive parental behavior was .69 and .85, respectively. Interrater reliability: The interrater reliability was acceptable for all variables (intraclass correlations [ICCs] = .59–.85, n = 55; Cicchetti, 1994)."
## [358] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alphas for the total measure were .77 and .78 for the two samples (n = 184 and n = 186), respectively."
## [359] "For ministry shame and ministry guilt, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the student sample were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. In a subsample of the students (n=49), test-retest reliabilities over a 1-month period for shame and guilt were r=0.78 and 0.82, respectively. Internal consistency for ministry shame and guilt in the clergy sample (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients) were 0.86 and 0.76, respectively."
## [360] "Internal Consistency: scale internal consistency reliability was investigated at two levels of analysis: the individual student score (n = 614) and the class mean score (n = 32). The reliability estimates at the level of individual student score were all above .77, with the exception of the \"complying\" dimension (alpha = .63). Similarly, at the level of the class mean score the alpha values were all above .75, with the exception of the \"reprimanding\" dimension (alpha = .65)."
## [361] "The inter-rater reliability was determined by the correlation between the 0 and 2-week score in the Chicago sample as it is done by two different raters: r = 0.86 and N = 32. The correlations between the 2-week and 6-week ratings (r = 0.81, N = 36) were also significant, indicating the stability of both the syndrome and the measure."
## [362] "Cronbach's alpha = .86. For the second study, reliability analyses of the Terrorism Questionnaire resulted in very high Cronbach’s alphas in all three cases (N=130 for all): α (Terrorism Questionnaire, general version, pre-test) = .80, α (Terrorism Questionnaire, general version, post-test) = .88 and α (Terrorism Questionnaire, specific version) = .82."
## [363] "The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the K-BDRS was 0.866. The inter-rater reliability was analyzed in a subsample of patients (n = 20) who were interviewed by two different raters. The inter-rater reliability was high for both the total K-BDRS score (ICC = 0.954, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.884–0.982, p < 0.001) and the individual items (ICC > 0.70). The test-retest reliability was also analyzed in a subsample of patients (n = 35) who had no clinical change between two testing sessions, and was high for both the total K-BDRS score (ICC = 0.950, 95 % CI = 0.901–0.975, p < 0.001) and the individual items as well (ICC > 0.70."
## [364] "Reliability analysis yielded an overall Cronbach's alpha of .84. In addition, alpha was estimated for each of the four factors: (1) Blend/Balance, .87 (n = 8); (2) Time-Feel, .65 (n = 5); (3) Idiomatic Nuance, .80 (n = 2); and (4) Expression, .87 (n = 3). Alpha was also estimated for each of the rater groups: undergraduates, .78 (n = 19); graduates (n = 27), .75; professional performers, .75 (n = 29); and university professors, .89 (n = 27)."
## [365] "Interrater reliability: The estimated inter-rater reliability from 28 videos that were coded by multiple coders (two randomly selected coders) was excellent for both BOSCC domains, as well as for the Core Total, with ICCs ranging from 0.97, 95% CI [0.94–0.99], to 0.98, 95% CI [0.96–0.99]. ICCs of individual items ranged from 0.72, 95% CI [0.53–0.91] to 0.96, 95% CI [0.93–0.99]. Test-retest reliability: Using a sub-set of children (n = 20) with two video observations separated by less than one month (40 videos total), the estimated test–retest reliabilities (ICCs) were high: 0.89, 95% CI (0.77, 0.98), for the social-communication domain, 0.79, 95% CI [0.62, 0.96], for the RRB domain, and 0.90, 95% CI [0.81, 0.98], for the Core total. ICCs of individual items ranged from 0.44, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.92] to 0.89, 95% CI [0.81, 0.98]."
## [366] "Internal consistency: Spearman’s correlation showed that scores for the two vignettes had a strong, significant correlation (ρ (129) = 0.68, p < 0.001). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.73 for the 44 items on the scoring scheme, indicating good internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability: The intra-class correlations indicated substantial inter-rater reliability looking at absolute agreement for total score for both data sets marked by two raters (N = 25, ICC(2,k) = 0.94, p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability: Intra-class correlations indicated excellent test–retest reliability for total Score between time points one and two (N = 10, ICC(2,k) = 0.96, p < 0.001)."
## [367] "The coefficient alpha of the 30-item ECI scale (based on 489 subjects) was .90. The test-retest correlation was .91 (n= 45)."
## [368] "Inter-rater Reliability: Following training, 10% of the sample (N = 20) was double-rated and inter-rater reliability was assessed on these responses. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (Landis & Koch 1977; kappa = .89). Internal Consistency: The AST-DA had good internal consistency on pleasantness ratings (Cronbach's alpha = .83, George & Mallery, 2003) and excellent split half reliability (r = .80)."
## [369] "Test-Retest Reliability: The kappa index of test-retest reliability for the instrument over a two-week period was .78 in a sample of medical center employees (n = 20)."
## [370] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach's alpha statistics for the Body Image Scale in these sub-groups were 0.91, 0.91 and 0.86, respectively. Cronbach's alpha statistic for data from the full sample (n=682) was 0.93: item alphas ranged between 0.92 and 0.93."
## [371] "Internal consistency reliability for the total sample of 1196 participants on the ICIAI-FAM (n = 10 items) and ICIAI-FRD (n = 10 items) scales was high (alpha = .91 and .90, respectively). Reliability estimates for each of the three subscales within each context examined separately was good (alphas ranged from .80 to .88). The reliability estimates for the ICIAI-FAM and ICIAI-FRD total scale when explored separately by each racial/ethnic group were also good: five-item subscale of maintaining social harmony through action (alphas ranged from .87 to .89), three-item subscale of respecting the values and norms of the group (alphas ranged from .78 to .87), and two-item subscale of self-sacrifice on behalf of group needs (alphas ranged from .77 to .82)."
## [372] "Reliability analysis yielded an overall Cronbach's alpha of .830. Interrater reliability was examined by comparing QoDD-D-MA scores with scores on the Informal Caregivers' version of the QoDD (QoDD-D-ANG). The Pearson correlation coefficient for matching cases (n = 150) of the QoDD-D-ANG and the QoDD-D-MA was r = .245 and 2-sided significant (P < .01)."
## [373] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alphas ranged from .661 to .814 in the total sample (N = 292). Test-Retest Reliability: The 2-week test-retest correlations were significant for the total score (t = 0.934, p < 0.001), and the sub-tests Explaining Inferences (t = 0.818, p < 0.05), Negative Why (t = 0.867, p < 0.05), Determining Solutions (t = 0.940, p < 0.001) and Avoiding Problem (t = 0.914, p < 0.05). The correlation for the sub-test Determining Cause was not significant (t = 0.631). Interrater Reliability: A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) was calculated, for inter-scorer reliability for the total test score (r = 0.9662) and for the sub-tests Explaining Inferences (r = 0.9185), Determining Cause (r = 0.8785), Negative Why (r = 9318), Determining Solution (r = 0.8823) and Avoiding Problem (r = 0.9031) with all correlations being significant at p < 0.001."
## [374] "Cronbach’s alpha = .95. Among 11 subjects who repeated the survey 37 to 194 days later, the mean change in Total Integration Score was +1.5 of 100 (95% confidence interval -5.0, +8.0) with a range from -19 to +23, providing evidence of good test–retest reliability. Interrater agreement within practice (N=32 respondents from 15 practices) was also supported. The authors note that the wording of items can be further improved to increase the measure’s reliability."
## [375] "Cronbach's alpha for the entire sample (N = 120) was .921; for husbands separately, .923, and for wives separately, .920. Systematic removal of each item had no impact on the alpha."
## [376] "Cronbach's alpha values were 0.87 [0.86] for MA, 0.84 [0.88] for EV, and 0.73 [0.70] for DI based on N=149 (4-week retest based on N=52 given in brackets)."
## [377] "The DPSQ exhibited high reliability (alpha = .82). The removal of any single item did not improve the tool’s internal reliability. Correlation analysis revealed significant correlations (r = .74, n = 78, p < .001) between the 10 individual items of the DPSQ and the total questionnaire score."
## [378] "Internal Consistency: Reliability analysis found a Cronbach’s alpha value of .97 (N = 46); this indicated high internal consistency of the items."
## [379] "Interrater Reliability: To establish reliability, approximately one-fifth (n = 115) of the total number of coded posts were randomly selected and coded by the first and second authors. Percent agreements for all variables in the coding system ranged from 89.5% to 99%. Kappas ranged from 0.66 for the type of leadership style to 0.80 for whether the post was a staff member or a participant, indicating substantial agreement between coders."
## [380] "Internal and Test-Retest Reliability: Internal reliability of the SCSK scale was acceptable (KR-20 = .69) in a sample of 514 young adults, and 2-week test–retest reliability was high (r = .83, n = 52)."
## [381] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alphas across two studies (N = 204 and N = 100, respectively) ranged from .74 to .96. Items with the highest item-total correlation within each factor were used to form an 8-item short-form scale with acceptable reliability (alpha = .82)."
## [382] "The internal consistency of the SAC-IAT was moderate whether including all participants (α = .64; N = 78) or only including child molesters with victims below 12 and nonsex offenders (α = .73; n = 57)."
## [383] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alphas across two studies (N = 204 and N = 100, respectively) ranged from .79 to .94. Items with the highest item-total correlation within each factor were used to form a 9-item short-form scale with acceptable reliability (alpha = .76)."
## [384] "Results revealed a strong general dimension with high internal consistency (α = 0.92), as well as the existence of two hypothesised subfactors (correlated at 0.78): efficacy to parent and efficacy to connect, each with internal consistencies of 0.85+. Test–retest reliability (n = 200) was 0.84."
## [385] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alphas were above 0.84 across all samples. Test-retest reliability: Stability was correlated between two data collections, (Cronbach-alpha was 0.881 for the two surveys) and 0.885), the rate being r = 0.86 (N = 75; p <0.001)."
## [386] "The retest reliability of the IS was .87 (1-mo. interval, N = 300)."
## [387] "The α (Cronbach) coefficient was calculated for each scale, in the non-clinical sample of the CSI–4 Checklist (N=1066). More than a half of the internal consistency coefficients were over .70 (14 of the 24 coefficients from the Teacher Checklist and 21 of the 26 coefficients from the Parent Checklist) and only three coefficients (two from the Teacher Checklist and one from the Parent Checklist) were below .60. To assess test-retest reliability, the Romanian version of the CSI-4 was administered twice, at a two-month interval. For most scales, significant values of the correlation coefficients were obtained, at p<.05 (generally, at p<.001) and the value of the correlation coefficients were moderate to high, except for the Compulsions scale of the Teacher Checklist, and the Schizophrenia scale of the Parent Checklist. Interrater reliability was also tested and found to be sufficient."
## [388] "The Kuder-Richardson 20 statistic (KR20) for internal consistency reliability was calculated for the post-tested subscales, using retained items only. The KR20 (i. e. standardized item alpha) for the general knowledge subscale was 0.60 and for the curability subscale was 0.62. The overall KR20 for the two subscales combined was 0.71. Correlations were run between use and frequency of screening methods and scores on the subscales. No significant correlation was found between women's scores and use or frequency of mammography or professional examinations. There was a weak but significant correlation between subscale scores and utilization of breast self-examination (BSE). For the general knowledge subscale, the correlation with BSE utilization was 0.17 (n = 177, P= 0.01). The correlation of the curability subscales with BSE utilization was 0.18 (n=178, =0.01)."
## [389] "As in previous studies of the reliability of the original English version the internal consistency of the scale was high (Cronbach alpha = .88). A Pearson product-moment correlation was the estimate of test-retest correlation over a 4-wk. interval. This correlation was satisfactory: r = .72 (n = 74)."
## [390] "Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .905 for the subsample of managers (N = 126) and .888 for the subsample of lower-ranking officials (n = 487)."
## [391] "For the knowledge measure (combined A & B sets), Cronbach’s alpha was .810. The correlation between composite scores on set A and set B was r = 0.883 (p < 0.001, n = 30). For the self-efficacy measure, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.954 at the first administration and 0.933 at the second administration. The correlation between composite selfefficacy scores at the first and second administrations was r = 0.699 (p <0.001, n = 30)."
## [392] "Study 1: The alpha coefficient was .93 in the initial sample (n = 372), .92 in the 3-week retest subsample (n = 121), and .94 in the 7-month retest subsample (n = 102). The 3-week test–retest correlation coefficient was .78, whereas the 7-month test–retest correlation coefficient was .65. Study 2: The alpha coefficient was .93."
## [393] "Cronbach’s alpha for item-to-scale consistency was .78 for first-order cognitive ToM, .76 for first-order affective ToM, .84 for second-order cognitive ToM, and .69 for second-order affective ToM. Test-retest reliability of the VAMA was assessed over a 4 week interval (n = 30). ToM total ICC = .93, 95% CI = .85–.96, first-order cognitive ICC = .96, 95% CI = .91–.98, first-order affective ICC = .98, 95% CI = .95–.99, second-order cognitive ICC = .95, 95% CI = .89–.97, and, second-order affective ICC = .99, 95% CI =.98–99."
## [394] "Internal Consistency: For the combined adolescent samples (n = 153), Cronbach's alpha was 0.94. Temporal Stability: The test–retest correlation for the 20 adolescents from Samples 2 and 3 who completed the IPG-C twice with a 4-week to 6-week interval was r = 0.72 (p < 0.001)."
## [395] "Internal Consistency: For the combined children samples (n = 169), the Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. Temporal Stability: The test–retest correlation for the 18 children from Samples 2 and 3 who completed the IPG-C twice with a 4-week to 6-week interval was r = 0.88 (p < 0.001)."
## [396] "Test-retest Reliability: The QAPACE was administered at two different times, 6 weeks apart, over one year period (2001-2002; n = 121). Results showed Pearson’s intra class correlation coefficients (ICC) between two estimations of total energy expenditure as r = 0.96 [95% CI, 0.95 ; 0.97]."
## [397] "Internal Consistency: To determine the scale’s reliability, Cronbach's alpha was calculated, resulting in a reliability coefficient of 0.82, indicating the scale as a whole has adequate internal consistency. Internal consistency was tested across the different participants/settings and across the different species in this sample. Alpha levels ranged from 0.72 to 0.89, indicating the HAIS is internally consistent across several settings and species. Test-retest: A subset of participants (n = 57) were subjected to test-retest analysis. Of the 57 participants, 52.6% (n = 30) returned one week later to complete the HAIS a second time, based on their experience with the animal the week before. The test-retest coefficients ranged from 0.36 to 0.94, with most coefficients at or above 0.70. These data suggest that it is possible to measure HAI with the HAIS up to one week after an interaction with an animal, although some items may be more reliable than others."
## [398] "Internal Consistency: This scale was found to have good internal consistency (eight items, Cronbach’s α = 0.891, n = 46)."
## [399] "Internal Consistency: There was good internal consistency for each treatment target subscale (Core Belief subscale, six items, Cronbach’s α = 0.851, n = 48; Multimodal subscale, six items, Cronbach’s α = 0.808, n = 48; Generic subscale, 10 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.823, n = 48). The results showed good internal consistency on both the Core Belief (six items, Cronbach’s α = 0.800, n = 47) and Multimodal (20 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.850, n = 47) subscales but moderate internal consistency on the shorter Target-free subscale (four items, Cronbach’s α = 0.569, n = 47)."
## [400] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s α was 0.86 (95% Cl 0.83-0.88; n= 303). Test-Retest Reliability: (ICC= 0 69, 95% Cl 0.57-0.78)."
## [401] "Internal Consistency: An additional validation (n = 19) of the resulting instrument demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.88)."
## [402] "Results in the pilot study were as follows for each sub-scale: Frequency, alpha = .80; Effort Grade alpha = .83; Consequences alpha = .95. The reliability index obtained in the final sample (n = 383) was: Frequency alpha = .73; Effort Grade alpha = .80; Positive impact on the environment alpha = .93."
## [403] "Internal consistency: The internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) of the BCQ total score (the whole group of women and without eating disorders) was at .95. In the group of Women with eating disorders α = .93, in the group of women without eating disorders α = .90 and in the group of men α = .83. The values of women with anorexia Nervosa had an internal consistency of α = .94, the women with Bulimia Nervosa α = .93, and those of Women with an undefined eating disorder α = .92. Test-retest reliability: The test-retest reliability was based on the data of a sample of non-dysfunctional women and men (n = 85, 2 week intervals) rtt = .91 (p < .001). Second, was the test-retest reliability on a sample of women with eating disorders who were waiting for a psychotherapeutic treatment (n = 19), at intervals of three months. This resulted correlation coefficients of rtt = .73 (p <.001)."
## [404] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients calculated for a broad sample (n = 797) completing the final 27-item QMEC support the fidelity of the overall Optimal commitment scale (α = 0.89) and its subscales: Enthusiasm (α = 0.88), Perseverance (α = 0.89) and Reconciliation (α = 0.83). The same is true for the overall scale of Over-commitment (α = 0.86) and its subscales: Excessive enthusiasm (α = 0.88), Compulsive persistence (α = 0.79) and Perception of neglect (α = 0.87). The global scale of Under-commitment (α = 0.95), and the subscales of Lack of interest (α = 0.91), Lack of energy (α = 0.87) and Perception of invasion (α = 0.92) were also faithful."
## [405] "As a whole scale, the Turkish version of the DERS was found to have a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .94. Item total correlations ranged between .18 and .71, and 32 of the items had item total correlations of above .35. Cronbach's alphas for the subscales of the DERS ranged from .75 to .90. The Guttman split-half reliability for the DERS was .95: the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the first part comprised 18 items and was .86, and the second part comprised 17 items and was .89. The test-retest reliability of the total DERS was found as .83 (n=59), slightly lower than the original version which was .88 (n=21). Test-retest reliability coefficients of the subscales of the Turkish version of the DERS ranged between .60 and .85."
## [406] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.75 and 0.83 respectively, for the Awareness and Recognition factors. Test-retest stability (n= 62) had an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51–0.83) for awareness and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.64–0.92) for recognition."
## [407] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha values were greater than .90. Test-Retest Reliability: With a three-month interval, the total value and the core behavioral items (p each <.001, rtt = .67 [RS], .82 [EC], .80 [WC], .85 [SC], .88 [Total value], Tb = .45 [objective binging], .39 [self-induced vomiting], n = 73 non-clinical subjects)."
## [408] "After established themes were agreed upon, 20% of the surveys (n=8 surveys) were randomly selected to be double-coded. One hundred percent agreement was achieved between the first author and the reliability coder."
## [409] "Internal Reliability: The reliability of the final 140-item version of the LIFE was .83. Phase II LIFE content scale reliabilities ranged from .76 to .89. The already established Defensiveness scale reliability from Phase I was .78 (N=75) and from Phase II was .75 (N=100)."
## [410] "Internal Reliability: The person reliability was 0.81 and the Cronbach's alpha was 0.88 suggesting the FreKAQ-J has good internal consistency and is suitable for both individual and group use. Test-Retest Reliability: Of the participants who reported no change (the difference between first and second round of pain intensity during movement is under 10 mm) in pain intensity during the past 2 weeks (n = 23), there was excellent agreement between test and retest total scores, with an ICC of 0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52±0.89]."
## [411] "The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the total score of the RBD was α = 0.91. For the RBD domains, it ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. Regarding test-retest stability (N = 9), ICC was satisfactory for the total score (ICC = 0.97; p ≤ 0.001) as well as for the RBD domains (self-management of BD = 0.95, p ≤ 0.001; self-care = 0.97, p ≤ 0.001; self-confidence = 0.78, p ≤ 0.01; interpersonal support=0.88, p ≤ 0.01). The turning point factor's ICC was not significant (p=0.68)."
## [412] "The MIEG scale showed good internal reliability across all samples, from α = .91 (Sample 3) to α = .96 (Sample 1). Reliabilities of target groups (4 items each) across all participants were also computed: Albanian (α = .91, n = 408), Chinese (α = .84, n = 216), French (α = .83, n = 749), Germans (α = .80, n = 450), Indians (α = .72, n = 104), Iranians (α = .74, n = 450), Moroccan (α = .91, n = 491), Romanian (α = .91, n = 870), U.S. citizens (α = .85, n = 299). In all the analyses, the Cronbach’s α did not increase with the elimination of any item. The item-total correlations for the MIEG items were over .40 across all samples."
## [413] "The test-retest coefficient was 0.59. The split-half was 0.85. For the whole sample (N = 204), Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.89."
## [414] "Internal Reliability: Across the entire sample (N = 258), the PQ-92 and its subscales had good internal consistency as indicated by Cronbach's alphas of 0.945 for the total scale (p = 0.0001), 0.888 for the positive subscale (p = 0.0001), 0.848 for the negative subscale (p = 0.0001), 0.767 for the disorganized subscale (p = 0.001), and 0.826 for the general subscale (p = 0.0001). Test-Retest Reliability: The coefficient of stability was 0.942 for PQ total, indicating excellent short-term test-retest reliability."
## [415] "Test Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha was estimated at .951, suggesting an acceptable level of internal consistency. Interrater Reliability: An analysis of how raters collected and interpreted data during data collection showed high interrater reliability (ICC = .972) for the 20% of observations (n = 42) that were conducted by two raters independently scoring the IVC-R."
## [416] "Cronbach’s alphas were .936, .910, and .896 for the total scale (18 items), Inattentive subscale (9 items), and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale (9 items), respectively. Inter-rater reliability was assessed based on teachers’ and parents’ ratings (n = 106; 53 ADHD and 53 normal) using Cohen’s Kappa = .925 (p < .001)."
## [417] "Cronbach’s alpha for the PSQ4D was 0.80 for the entire sample. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.75 in men and 0.82 in women; 0.76 in the 18- to 24-year age group (n=109), 0.73 in the 25- to 34-year age group (n=230), 0.85 in the 35- to 44-year age group (n=223), 0.78 in the 45- to 54-year age group (n=185) and 0.77 in the 55- to 60-year age group (n=80); 0.79 in public and 0.78 in private hospital settings. When the PSQ4D test positivity was defined as ‘any two questions positive’ (score ≥2), the kappa coefficient for interrater reliability (n=118) was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61–0.83). Using the same definition for test positivity, the kappa coefficient for test–retest reliability (n=38) was 0.9 (95% CI 0.76–1.0)."
## [418] "The Guttman split half reliability was .89 (N=120), the Cronbach's alpha was .94. Reliability coefficient of three social categories for perceived discrimination questionnaire was estimated separately. Guttman split half reliability for General category was found to be .88, Other Backward Categories was .89 and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category was .89."
## [419] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency reliabilities of both the Attitudes (α = .89) and the Behaviors (α = .90) subscales were high; the alpha for the overall measure was α = .90. Test-Retest Reliability: Among the subsample who completed the measure twice (n = 148), test-retest reliability was acceptable for both of the FMS subscales, with r = .79, p < .001 for the Attitudes subscale and r = .76, p < .001 for the Behaviors subscale, and r = .82 for the entire scale."
## [420] "Internal Reliability: Internal reliability of the ACES-NL was excellent (Cronbach's alpha= .91 and Lambda 2= .91). Item total correlations were moderate and ranged from .39 to .65 (M= .55). The ACES showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha= .89-.92) in Canadian studies (Dozois & Westra). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability (over a 18-month period) was good (r= .80 for the total sample, N= 108, and r= .79 for the pre-intake sample, n= 92)."
## [421] "Internal Reliability: Using Cronbach's coefficient alpha (a), the internal consistency of the ARP-R for total sample (n=201) was .99. Across assessment conditions, coefficient alpha (a) was .96 and .94 for the curriculum-based assessment and published, norm-referenced test case summaries respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: Across 1-month (n = 86), 3-month (n = 80), 6-month (n = 79), and 12-month (n = 74) intervals, test-retest reliability coefficients of .85, .82, .84, and .82, respectively, were obtained."
## [422] "Coefficient α = .65 (Time 1; N = 713), .73 (Time 2; N = 422). BSCI Factors: Mutual Concerns [coefficient α = .50 (Time 1; N = 820), .64 (Time 2; N = 485)]; Social Connections [coefficient α = .55 (Time 1; N = 917), .50 (Time 2; N = 544)]; Community Values [coefficient α = .51 (Time 1; N = 1040), .61 (Time 2; N = 621)]."
## [423] "Internal Consistency: The WBIS-Y displayed a Cronbach’s alpha level of .874. Test-Retest Reliability: A strong, positive, significant correlation was noted between interviewees’ repeated WBIS-Y assessments, despite the small sample size (N = 10, r = 0.88, p = .001)."
## [424] "Analyses indicated that test-retest reliability was high for both a PWS group and a control group. The authors were unable to assess inter-item reliability as the SGSM contains only one item for each situation. For intra-rater reliability, results indicated a strong level of agreement between the raters, as the ICC was 0.95 (95% CI= 0.92–0.98, n =20). Similarly, inter-rater reliability, the ICC was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92–0.98, n= 20) and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.998 (n= 20, 95% confidence interval =0.9995–0.9998)."
## [425] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.93 for the SELA, using the initial sample (n =12 teachers; n = 268 students). Test-retest Reliability: The SE Composite of the five social emotional rubrics and AF Composite of three academic rubrics, displayed alpha values of 0.89 (SE composite) and 0.91 (AF composite) over a one-month period. The SE subscale rubric ratings ranged from 0.70 to 0.87 and the AF subscale rubric ratings ranged from 0.84 to 0.87. All test-retest ratings were statistically significant."
## [426] "Cronbach's alphas (EFA/CFA): Food Choice Driven by the Advertising Environment Scale = 0.77/0.81; Food Choice Driven by a Healthy Aesthetic Scale = 0.52/0.54; Food Choice Driven by Busy Daily Life and Preferences Scale = 0.55/0.44. Responses from a subsample of freshmen completing both Spring Time 1 and Spring Time 2 (n = 109) were used to determine test–retest reliability. Cohen’s weighted κ coefficients for responses within 20 days of first administration revealed FCPS items have moderate to substantial test–retest reliability based on Landis and Koch (1977) criteria where ≤0 = poor, .01 to .20 = slight, .21 to .40 = fair, .41 to .60 = moderate, .61 to .80 = substantial, .81 to 1 = almost perfect."
## [427] "Internal Reliability: Cronbach alpha coefficients showed high internal consistency reliability, with alpha values for the Vitality, Emotional distress, and Sleep factors at 0.96, 0.96, and 0.90, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest reliability of individual items in stable patients (n = 33), 11 to 17 days after their baseline visit, was satisfactory, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.61 to 0.86."
## [428] "Cronbach’s α coefficients at baseline for subjects with BPD and comparison subjects were 0.86 and 0.90, respectively. When subjects with BPD were combined with comparison subjects, the test homogeneity of the baseline scores remained high (α = 0.92). Cronbach’s α coefficient for the borderline subjects was 0.89 after the first month of treatment, and remained high (0.90 to 0.92) during the 20-week treatment period. Item-total correlations and the corresponding overall measure of internal consistency indicated that all items are measuring the same dimension. Correlation between baseline and screening BEST total scores was moderate (r = 0.62, n = 130, P < .001). There was a mean (SD) of 53.1 (45.6) days between screening and baseline assessments."
## [429] "Cronbach's alpha was 0.81. Test-retest reliability estimates for identical administration within 7 days were 0.62 and 0.36 respectively, for enumerator (n = 95) and automated phone (n = 92) samples."
## [430] "Cronbach's alphas across samples were as follows: Derivation (n=2,325): .23; Mixed gender (n=625): .51; Self/informant (n=174): .22; Male prison (n=192): .35; Mixed gender jail (n=139): .59; Female prison (n=198): .59; Male jail (n=82): .07."
## [431] "The survey was assessed for internal consistency and uniqueness of each question by an expert panel (n = 8) including RTs, ROMPs and researchers (Imle & Atwood, 1988; Monterosso, Kristjanson, & Dadd, 2006). Items not meeting the minimum criterion for agreement (disagreement of more than one expert) were adapted or deleted according to feedback received and in consultation with panel members (Lynn, 1986)."
## [432] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88. Test-Retest Reliability: A subsample of caregivers (n = 33) completed the scale at 4- and 8-month intervals. Test-retest reliabilities were .71 and .67, respectively."
## [433] "The STQ was considered feasible, showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = .734), and the test–retest correlation with the STQ items demonstrated a high concordance between the tests over a two-week interval (ICC = .990; n = 50)."
## [434] "The DAD demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) and excellent interrater (N = 31, ICC = .95) and test–retest (N = 45, ICC = .96) reliability."
## [435] "Internal Reliability: The alpha coefficients according to ASC forms and ASC items, indicate high internal consistency. The mean coefficient across the nine forms, using a subsample of children (n = 56), was .83 (range = .79–.86). The mean coefficient for the eight items was .81 (range = .71–.89). The overall, alpha coefficient when considering all items in all forms was .83, but when totals from each of the forms were used as items, the alpha coefficient was .96. Test-Retest Reliability: Using a subsample of children (n = 56) who received all nine ASC forms with 2 weeks, the correlation between the median or best scores resulted in a mean correlation of .82, p < .01 (using median scores), and .78, p < .01 (using best scores). When parallel form reliability was examined for forms that were administered within the same session, albeit a random selection of forms, the mean correlation was .78, p <.01."
## [436] "Association between social support index scores over the long test–retest interval was strong (r = .78, p < .001). In a stratified analysis, those participants in the long-interval sample who experienced major life events between visits In the group experiencing a major life event showed patterns of test–retest agreement that were distinct from those seen in individuals with relative life stability. In a combined sample of all test–retest comparisons (n = 243), there were statistically significant, but somewhat weak, correlations between total weekly interaction and social support (r = .25, p < .001)."
## [437] "Satisfactory internal consistency (α = .81) was found in Sample 1 for the total score, with somewhat lower values on the subscale levels: manageability (α = .77), reflection (α = .76), and balance (α = .63). In Sample 2, the total scale alpha score was satisfactory (α = .75) with lower subscale values of manageability (α = .71), reflection (α = .64), and balance (α = .57). Stability over time was tested with a subset of Sample 1 (n = 60) over four weeks and resulted in a high retest reliability coefficient of r = .85. As SOC-R is assumed to be stable across the life span, a longer retest interval of 15 months was examined and yielded a coefficient of α = .74."
## [438] "Both the cultural harmony versus conflict (α = .86) and cultural blendedness versus compartmentalization (α = .81) subscales yielded reliable scores. Both subscales also had good test–retest stability: r harmony = .77 and r blendedness = .73 (n = 239, range = 5 to 10 days after first session, M = 6.9, SD = 0.9 days)."
## [439] "Internal Reliability: The internal consistency reliability for the final model, using Samples from the three studies (n = 942), was .94. The internal consistency reliabilities for the subscales of the SPF-24 were Social Support = .93, Social Skills 5 .89, Prioritizing/Planning Behavior = .90, and Goal Efficacy = .83."
## [440] "Internal Reliability: Results from three samples (total N = 1,959) indicated high reliabilities (ranging from .87 to .91)."
## [441] "Internal Consistency: An initial set of items was administered to a sample of university students (N=42) and resulted in 21 reliable items (r=.408-.687)."
## [442] "Test-retest reliability: The TGMD-3 (German translation) provides excellent test-retest (hypothesis 1, interval: 2 weeks, N = 104; locomotor skills: ICC = .94, 95% CI [.91, .96], p < .001; balls skills: ICC = .98, 95% CI [.97, .99], p < .001). Interrater reliability: Interrater scores (hypothesis 2, 2 raters, N = 30 observations; locomotor skills: ICC = .88, 95% CI [.76, .95], p < .001; ball skills: ICC = .97, 95% CI [.94, .99], p < .001). Intrarater reliability: Intrarater scores hypothesis 3, N = 30 observations, interval: 4 weeks; locomotor skills: ICC = .97, 95% CI [.94, .99], p < .001; ball skills: ICC = .99, 95% CI [.98, 1.00], p < .001). Internal consistency: Locomotor skills: Cronbach’s α = .76, and Ball skills: Cronbach’s α = .89."
## [443] "Internal consistency reliability values ranged from. 60 (narcissistic) to. 84 (borderline) with a median of. 72 in the normative sample;. 61 (obsessive–compulsive) to. 82 (borderline and avoidant) with a median of. 74 in the university sample;. 63 (narcissistic) to. 88 (borderline) with a median of. 78 in the outpatient mental health sample; and. 60 (narcissistic) to. 85 (borderline) with a median of. 77 in the prison sample. Test–retest reliability was examined in a subset of the original MMPI–2 normative sample (n=193) who were administered the test 1 week apart. The values were substantially larger than their corresponding internal consistency coefficients, ranging from. 78 (paranoid and obsessive–compulsive) to. 91 (avoidant) with a median of. 86."
## [444] "Test-Retest Reliability: The ICC statistic for the test-retest reliability of NPRS-NP for the stable group (n = 36) at two week follow-up, showed excellent test-retest reliability and a MDC of 1.13 points"
## [445] "In a sample of Portuguese (N = 53) internal consistency was good for high-conflict personal dilemmas (ρ = 0.84), poor for impersonal dilemmas (ρ = 0.53), and unacceptable for low-conflict personal dilemmas (ρ = 0.47). In a separate sample (N = 41), internal consistency, measured by the KR20 test, was good for high-conflict personal dilemmas (ρ = 0.86), poor for impersonal dilemmas (ρ = 0.50), and unacceptable for low-conflict personal dilemmas (ρ = 0.47). In a sample of Portuguese college students (N = 137), internal consistency was equivalent for both the long and short versions of dilemmas: good for high-conflict personal dilemmas (long and short versions: ρ = 0.85), and unacceptable for impersonal (long version: ρ = 0.40; short version: ρ = 0.41) and low-conflict personal dilemmas (long version: ρ = 0.29; short version: ρ = 0.28)."
## [446] "The internal consistency of the MCSYS subscales was assessed in the combined 2 basketball samples (n = 582). Cronbach alpha coefficients for the total basketball sample were .78 for the mastery scale and .74 for the ego scale. In a separate sample of swimmers, alpha coefficients of .84 for mastery and .75 for ego were obtained. Test-retest reliability for the MCSYS was assessed in sample of competitive swimmers, which completed the MCSYS and was then retested 1 week after the initial administration. The subscales demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability for a situational variable, with coefficients of .84 for mastery items, and .76 for ego items."
## [447] "Coefficient alpha was .92 for the 12-item version, demonstrating very strong internal consistency. Alphas for the three 4-item subscales were .88 (Problems), .87 (Frequency), and .85 (Initiation). Test-retest reliability was investigated over a 2-week period in a small sample (N = 27). Intraclass correlation coefficients between the two administrations were .75 for the total score, .72 for Problems, .81 for Frequency, and .58 for Initiation. Paired sample f-tests revealed no significant differences in mean scores between the two administrations for the total score or any of the three subscales (all p's > .60)."
## [448] "In a sample of commercial organization employees (N = 249), Cronbach's alpha ranged from .80-.92, and test–retest reliability coefficients for the 5 new scales were as follows: Agreeableness r = .85; Extraversion r = .80; Neuroticism r = .75; Conscientiousness r = .86; Openness r = .71 (N = 65, all p < .01)."
## [449] "The alpha coefficients ranged from .65 to .73. The test-retest reliability coefficients for a sample of college students (N = 119) were statistically significant (ps < .001) but low."
## [450] "Cronbach's alphas: Full test=.91; Interactional Problems=.86; Educational Problems=.78; Fear of Being Ridiculed=.80; Psychological/Personal Problems=.70. Test retest reliability (N=100) was significant (r=.91, p<.01) with two weeks interval."
## [451] "Internal Reliability: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the entire OTS and its two subscales all were in the .80s. Test-Retest Reliability: Over a 4-week interval, the test-retest reliabilities were .76 for the total OTS score, .67 for the Sensitivity subscale, and .81 for the Severity subscale (all Ps < .001; N = 61)."
## [452] "In a sample of children (N = 453, ages 8-14), coefficient alpha was .87; the three-week test-retest reliability was .80. In a separate sample (N = 241, ages 7-14), coefficient alpha in the current sample was .85."
## [453] "Internal Consistency: The internal reliability of the BDS was satisfactory, in the present sample of 170 participants (Cronbach’s α = .69), and among all of the Wave 2 participants (n = 239) who completed the BDS (Cronbach’s α = .75)."
## [454] "Cronbach's alpha=.72. The test-retest reliability of the scale over a three week period (n = 95) was 0.93."
## [455] "Cronbach's alpha obtained for the combined sample (n = 1,029) ranged from 0.77-0.85 across the factors, while test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.70-0.89."
## [456] "Reliability of the final scale was α = .94. Inter-temporal stability checks, with a two month delay between two administrations, was assessed across two independent samples, university staff members (n= 118) and undergraduate students (n = 83). For the staff sample, the BESC scale demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability with the two administrations being significantly correlated after a two-month delay, r = .62 (p < .001). The mean of the individual-item correlations was r = .51 (all ps < .001). For the student sample, the correlation between the two measures was r = .78, (p < .001) and the mean of the individual-item correlations was r = .59 (all ps < .001)."
## [457] "A standardized Cronbach’s a was 0.92, and average inter-item correlation was 0.32. Of those, who repeated the GPM-K within 2–4 weeks (n = 32), Pearson’s r correlation of test–retest reliability was statistically significant (r = 0.640)."
## [458] "Based on the combined clinical and community samples (n = 648), coefficients for the HART, HART-A, and HART-B were .96, .93, and .92, respectively. Both short forms correlated more highly with the full HART (r = .98 each) than with one another (r = .93). Pearson correlations between baseline and follow-up scores on the HART, HART-A, and HART-B were .96, .94, and .91, respectively. In 111 adults tested twice, 4–8 years apart, HART-A and HART-B showed excellent test–retest reliability (rs = .94 and .92)."
## [459] "Internal consistency of the scale was high, with a coefficient alpha of 0.87 and a mean inter-item correlation of 0.27 (n = 406). Two-week test–retest correlation for the college sample (n = 30) was adequate (r = 0.78, p < 0.001). No difference in the percentage of correct responses of college students at study baseline (42.28 ± 19.42) and at 2-weeks follow-up (42.63 ± 22.94) was observed, t(29) = 0.00, p = 0.90."
## [460] "The internal consistency of the RTW-SE scale was examined on the baseline data (all three samples) and the follow-up data (from samples 2 and 3). The internal consistency was excellent over time and across samples (> .80). The test re-test reliability of the scale was studied within-sample 3 (N = 65) using the baseline measurement and at a two-week follow-up. Pearson correlation was .73 (p <.01), indicating adequate test re-test reliability (Evers, 2001)."
## [461] "Cronbach's alpha ranged from .88-.94 across the factors in an Iranian sample of college students (N=187), and .86-.97 in a US sample of college students (N=188)."
## [462] "The new 13-item RSC-C showed internal reliability (α = .76). Mean scores at time 1 (M = 29.53, SD = 7.19; score range 13-52) and time 2 (M = 29.13, SD = 6.59; score range 13-52) were not significantly different (F[1, 196] = .55) and were moderately correlated (r = .43, n = 197, p<.001). Taking into consideration the long retention interval (1 year), these results imply a satisfactory degree of test-retest reliability."
## [463] "The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for interrater reliability were 0.845 (two-way random absolute agreement) and 0.657 (one-way) for test–retest reliability testing. Cronbach’s alpha-value on the APS-J was 0.645 for the total sample (n = 171) and 0.719 for subjects who scored 0 on the MMSE (n = 58)."
## [464] "The single component had strong item-total correlations (mean ± s.d. = 3.08 ± 0.70) and an internal consistency of α = 0.88. Test-retest for the 9-item scale was r = 0.52, p = .086 (n = 12)."
## [465] "Internal Consistency: Using Cronbach's alpha, the alpha coefficient was 0.62. Inter-Rater Reliability: The inter-rater reliability was good (k = 0.77, P = 0.0001, n = 18)."
## [466] "In a sample of students (N = 412) Hong Kong students of average ability , the reliability estimate for the total scale was .946, ranging from .745-.857 across the subscales. In a sample of students (N = 374) talented in mathematics (Grades 4–9, age 9–15 years), the reliability estimate for the total scale was .937, ranging from .776-.872 across the subscales."
## [467] "McDonald’s omegas ranged between 0.42-0.84 and 0.61-0.83 respectively across the dimensions in 2 separate samples (N = 187; N = 261)."
## [468] "The internal consistency of each of the seven dimensions was estimated using coefficient alpha. The reliabilities exceeded the conventional level of acceptance of .70: Unity with Others = .90; Serving Others = .83; Expressing Full Potential = .83; Developing the inner Self = .72; Reality = .79; Inspiration = .89; and Balancing Tensions = .85. The alpha for the total scale was .92. Test-Retest Reliability: Responses completed 2 months after the responses were initially collected (n = 173, response rate 63%) had a correlation of .80 (p < .01), suggesting stability of the scale over time."
## [469] "Internal consistency reliability of the composite factor was tested using Cronbach’s alpha reliability statistic. Cronbach’s alpha for N = 252 was .945 and for N = 202, it was .948."
## [470] "All alpha coefficients were above .84, and all test-retest (n=159) correlations were above .78."
## [471] "The five-factor scale had a Cronbach’s α of .91; appearance had a Cronbach’s α of .93; emotional response, .84; sporting interests, .82; occupational interests, .81; and interpersonal style, .72. Correlations for test-retest reliability (N = 20 completing the measure on two occasions, 10 days apart) were high for the overall total scale score (r = .97). They were also high for each subscale: appearance, r = .94; emotional response, r = .94; sporting interests, r = .98; occupational interests, r = .88; and interpersonal style, r = .77."
## [472] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was α = .79 (p = .01, N= 586) for the internal reliability. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability coefficient was rtt= .68 (N= 217, p < .01) for the follow-up span (2–6 months) of the control group."
## [473] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha of the 30 items was high (α=0.95, n=686), indicating ‘excellent’ internal consistency for the measure (Cronbach, 1951). Likewise, the Cronbach's alphas for each subscale were also in the ‘excellent’ range (α=0.82–0.91)."
## [474] "Internal Consistency: The index variables of the partner onerous causal attribution or partner burdening responsibility attribution of negative experience have excellent reliability. Test-Retest Reliability: The post-measurement stability of the FAP short form over a 15-month period is moderately high (rtt = .43 for females and rtt = .42 for males, N = 101, p <.001), suggesting that the FAP scales are change-sensitive."
## [475] "Internal Consistency: Persuasion (alpha = 0.84); Nurturing (alpha = 0.88). Study 1 test-retest reliability: The scale exhibited acceptable measurement properties over Time 1 (n = 76, α = .95, r- = .33) and Time 2 (n = 36, α = .95, r- = .33) according to acknowledged heuristics. Within-subjects test-retest reliability (r = .76, n = 36) was also acceptable."
## [476] "Test–retest correlations were high (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.99, n = 56, p = .000). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the means by using dependent sample t-test analysis (t = 0.40, n = 210, p = .69). Cronbach's alpha was high (α = 0.83, n = 210)."
## [477] "Internal consistency: Reliability was evaluated following ECT treatment 1 (Cronbach α = 0.76, n = 21). Test-retest: Across ECT treatments 2 and 3, test-retest reliability was 0.67 (P < 0.01, n = 21)."
## [478] "Internal Consistency: The OBQ-9 demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = .85); corrected item-total correlations ranged from .48 to .64. Subscale alphas were as follows: Perfectionism and Intolerance for Uncertainty, alpha = .83; Responsibility and Threat Overestimation, alpha = .77; Importance of and Control over Thoughts, alpha = .83. Test-Retest Reliability: A significant correlation was found, r(255) = .86, p < .001, and suggested that the scale demonstrated good test–retest reliability. The reproducibility of subscales was also assessed by conducting zero-order Pearson's correlations between each subscale scores from Week 1 and Week 2 of IRT (n=257). Significant correlations were found and suggested that subscales demonstrated good test–retest reliability: Perfectionism and Intolerance for Uncertainty, r(255) = .77, p< .001; Responsibility and Threat Overestimation, r(255) = .83, p<.001; Importance of and Control over Thoughts, r(255) = .83, p<.001."
## [479] "Internal Consistency: Alpha for direct connection with the creator subscale was .87, for asceticism subscale was .82, for meditation subscale was .83, for divine love subscale the alpha was .69. The short four items scale had an alpha of .71. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest (4 weeks interval between Time 1 and Time 2) on a sample of (N = 34) found to be .72."
## [480] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging between 0.841 and 0.926. Test-retest Reliability: A subgroup of participants (n = 17) with stable lymphedema, who were not undergoing active treatment was recruited to assess the test-retest reliability of the LLIS. The results showed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for test-retest reliability ranging from .965 to .990."
## [481] "Test-Retest Reliability: The mean interval between two assessments was 12.3 days (SD = 5.5, range 3–31) for the sample a patients (n = 41). The intraclass correlation was .72. The concordance between the needs assessments of the patient-key worker pairs was examined. The agreement on number of unmet needs (ICC) of .61 was substantial, but lower for no needs, met needs and unrated needs (.45, .36 and .25 respectively)."
## [482] "Internal Consistency: Values for Cronbach’s alpha were .91, .92, .92, and .92 for Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3, and the total sample, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability with an interval of two months was .66 (based on N = 133 of Sample 1)."
## [483] "Inter-scorer reliability: r = .90 (p < .001) for the total score. Internal consistency: alpha = .96 based on all capacity items (n = 56) across three vignettes for patients with dementia and schizophrenia."
## [484] "Internal Consistency: Using Cronbach's alpha, the internal consistency was high for the total score and avoidance of pain (alpha = .87 and .89, respectively) and medium for cognitive fusion (alpha = .54). Test-Retest Reliability: Assessed by headache sufferers (N = 89), the test-retest correlation was good over a three-month period, was .52 (.54 for Pain Avoidance and .36 for Cognitive Fusion)."
## [485] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.963 for the whole scale. High correlation of all items with the overall score was found, ranging from 0.60–0.86, except for item 9 which reached a moderate correlation (0.44). Test-Retest Reliability: With a two-week interval, the ICC for the overall scores reached a value of 0.90 (95% confidence interval = 0.87–0.92; n = 240) and for each item it ranged from 0.77–0.88, except for item 3 (0.60)."
## [486] "Internal Consistency: Using Cronbach's alpha, the reliability was 0.87. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.75) using data from the patients (n = 199) who were re-administered the Q-LES-Q-SF 2 weeks after the first administration."
## [487] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha for the InDI-A was 0.93, and item-total correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.81. The adjusted ICC for test-retest reliability of the InDI-A (n= 150)was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.79). ICCs for lifetime InDI-D and InDI-M frequencies were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.78) and 0.72 (0.63, 0.79) respectively."
## [488] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Composite reliability ranged from .74-.85, .75-.85, and .75-.87 respectively, across the factors. Test-retest reliability: All three factors had good test–retest reliability (1 week interval): rappearance = .93, p < .001; rweight = .88, p < .001; rphysical = .78, p < .001, rBUMPSstotal .91, p < .001 (n = 93)."
## [489] "Internal consistency: the final IMAGEN-DIS scale demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency (Time 1 α = .78; Time 2 α = .81). Test-retest reliability: In the subsample of participants for whom data were available for both Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1,585), the IMAGEN-DIS scale also evidenced good temporal stability, with scale scores at Time 1 showing a strong, significant association with scores at Time 2 (r = .61, p < .001)."
## [490] "Internal Consistency: The total measure (n = 27 items, alpha = .90), Physical Violence (alpha = .90), Sexual Violence (alpha = .89), and Atypical Violence (alpha = .87) subscales demonstrated good reliability."
## [491] "Internal Consistency: McDonald's omega coefficients (McDonald, 1999) displayed an overall ω value of 0.93 for the Supervisor Idea Adoption Scale. For the subscales, omega ω values were 0.90 (Idea Openness), 0.89 (Idea Selection), and 0.92 (Idea Application). Test-retest Reliability: The instrument was administered twice over a 3-month period to a Study 3 subsample (n = 189). Pearson's correlations were calculated between the T1 and T2 scores at the item, subscale, and general scale level. The results showed substantive associations between the first data collection (T1) and data collection 3 months later (T2). T1 and T2 at scale level were respectively .67 for the full supervisor idea adoption scale, .59 for idea openness, .53 for idea selection, and .59 for idea application. T1 and T2 at item level ranged from .43 to .54 for idea openness, .41 to .47 for idea selection, and .50 to .55 for idea application, respectively."
## [492] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the T-iPBI scale was excellent with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. The Cronbach’s alpha values of each subscale were also high (alpha = .72–.82). Test-Retest Reliability: Within the test–retest sample (N = 33), mean T-iPBI scores at T1 (Day 0), T2 (Day 7), and T3 (Day 28) were 67.45 (SD = 11.52), 66.85 (SD = 12.27), and 66.76 (SD = 13.98), respectively. The average measure ICC of T-iPBI was .95 with a 95% confidence interval from .90 to .97, F(32, 64) = 18.35, p < .001."
## [493] "Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha value for the total measure was .86, and ranged from .75-.85 across the factors. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest results (1 month interval) were r = .86, n = 64, p = 0.00."
## [494] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.81 for the instrument. If the total score is excluded, then the overall alpha value displayed as 0.61. Inter-rater Reliability: To determine the reliability between evaluators, the Kappa index (k) was calculated in participants (n = 20) evaluated by 2 examiners (one of whom led the session) who would later score the In-Out-Test. Reliability results between evaluators displayed as k = 0.94. Test-retest Reliability: The Interclass correlation (ICC) value for the test-retest reliability was r = 0.57 (p = 0.575)."
## [495] "Internal Consistency: Alpha internal consistency reliabilities over three administrations (N = 110) are as follows: information, .80; friendship, .81; influence, .64; and entertainment, .80. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability for the entire scale is .64 (mean days to retest = 29, SD = 16.8)."
## [496] "Internal Consistency: Alpha reliability for the six-items scale was .823 in current data. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest (4 weeks interval between Time 1 and Time 2) on a sample of (N = 34) was .94."
## [497] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient assessed the internal consistency of the CAPS-T yes/no for 192 completed cases and showed satisfactory reliability (alpha = 0.93 for the nonclinical sample; alphas of 0.93 and 0.89 for the clinical samples). Test-Retest Reliability: Some participants were administered the CAPS-T on two occasions separated by 6 months. Highly significant relationships were found for all rating scores (CAPS-T yes/no: Spearman’s r = 0.81, n = 61, P < 0.001; distress: Spearman’s r = 0.81, n = 61, P < 0.001; intrusiveness: Spearman’s r = 0.83, n = 61, P < 0.001; frequency: Spearman’s r = 0.8, n = 61, P < 0.001)."
## [498] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale was calculated at 0.901. The Cronbach's alpha values for the factors ranged from 0.698-0.804. Test–retest reliability: The ICC coefficient was calculated for all dimensions. This coefficient was calculated at 0.911 for the whole instrument. Spearman correlation coefficient was used to describe the linear relationship between factors. Results showed that there was a strong and positive correlation between the main factors (r = 0.603.0.923, N = 450, P < 0.0001)."
## [499] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the CSVQ was good (alpha = .86). Corrected item-total correlations for each item ranged from .48 to .75. Test-Retest Reliability: The test re-test reliability of the CSVQ was assessed in a small subsample of participants (n = 84) who elected to complete the questionnaires again at a 1-month interval. Test re-test reliability was strong (r(73) = .74), indicating that CSVQ scores remained relatively stable over this time period. Interrater Reliability: Ratings of social vulnerability between parents and teachers were significantly correlated (r(93) = .29, p = .004)."
## [500] "Internal Consistency: The measure showed good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .825). Test-Retest Reliability: To assess temporal stability of the instrument, a Pearson’s r was calculated for the test-retest (r = 0.693, p < 0.001). This was done with a sub-sample (N = 269) obtained by availability of participants, with an interval of 15–27 days."
## [501] "Internal Consistency: In the short form, Guttman’s lambda 2 was 0.89 for parent-report and 0.86 for self-report. Interrater Reliability: There was a moderate intraclass correlation between parent- and self-report T scores in the short form (ICC = 0.65 [95% CI 0.62–0.68], p < .001, n = 1174)."
## [502] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alphas ranged from .77 to .92. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-reliability was good (r = 0.80, N = 84)."
## [503] "Internal Consistency: For husbands, Cronbach’s alpha for internal stressors (10 items) was .949 and that for external stressors (eight items) was .922. For wives, Cronbach’s alpha for internal stressors (10 items) was .913. Cronbach’s alpha for external stressors was .844 when there were 8 items and .790 when there were 4 items. Test-Retest Reliability: For husbands, there were strong positive correlations for scores at the two time points for acute internal stressors (r = .64, p < .001, n = 225), chronic internal stressors (r = .67, p < .001, n = 225), acute external stressors (r = .58, p < .001, n = 225) and chronic external stressors (r = .59, p < .001, n = 225). There were also strong positive correlations among wives for scores at the two time points on acute internal stressors (r = .63, p < .001, n = 206), chronic internal stressors (r = .72, p < .001, n = 206), acute external stressors (r = 60, p < .001, n = 206) and chronic external stressors (r = 62, p < .001, n = 206)."
## [504] "Internal Consistency: For the subscales, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.67 to 0.94. Values were not increased by the deletion of any items. Test-retest Reliability: The DAPR was administered twice within a one-week interval (n = 154). Results showed Cohen’s kappa values ranging from 0.41 – 0.61 for each subscale."
## [505] "Internal Consistency: Reliabilities were calculated from a Q-sort, using samples from 5 organizations. Results were as follows: insurance organization employees (reliability = .96), financial institution employees (.94), information systems organization employees (.93), non-profit organization employees (.88), sales and service unit employees of a major manufacturer (.94). For 2 levels at the insurance organization results were: claims adjusters (.95) and supervisors (.90). For the factors, reliabilities were .96, .96, .93, and .85, respectively. Test-retest Reliability: The OFI-R tested branch operations managers of a financial institution (n = 28) twice within a 9-month period, obtaining a correlation of 0.76. Graduate psychology students were given the OFI-I twice within a 6-month period, obtaining a correlation of 0.70."
## [506] "Test-Retest Reliability: Pearson’s correlation showed a significant positive correlation of the two measurements both when calculated over all countries (n=90, r=0.70, p < 0.001) and by country (Austria: n=30, r=0.54, p < 0.01; Italy: n=18, r=0.73, p < 0.001; Sweden: n=20, r=0.69, p < 0.001; UK: n=22, r=0.78, p < 0.001)."
## [507] "Internal Consistency: For the subscales, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging between 0.77 and 0.87 (interest subscales) and between 0.73 and 0.85 (skill subscales), indicative of good reliability. Test-retest Reliability: In order to conduct the test–retest reliability analyses, a subsample from Study 2 (n = 271) took the finalized test (76 items) a second time between 17 days and 50 days (M = 29.0, SD = 7.74) of the first administration. Results showed test–retest reliabilities between .74 and .86, indicating high test–retest reliability between Time 1 and Time 2."
## [508] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the cognitive empathy, affective empathy, sympathy, and the CAMES in the total sample were .82, .80, .82, and .87, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: With a 2-week interval, the two-way random ICC result indicated good test–retest reliability (N=1,251) for cognitive empathy, ICC = .71, F(1, 1250) = 3.23, p < .05; affective empathy, ICC = .66, F(1, 1250) = 2.49, p < .05; sympathy, ICC = .71, F(1, 1250) = 1.79, p < .05; and the whole CAMES, ICC = .76, F(1, 1250) = 4.76, p < .05."
## [509] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's Alpha coefficients displayed alpha values for the full sample (n = 95). At Time 1 (prior to the children being enrolled in the theater arts program), the alpha value was 0.74. At Time 2 (approximately 5 months after completing the program), the alpha value was 0.81. Inter-rater Reliability: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess inter-rater reliability in separate observations of the PTAR conducted for each time point in each year (i.e, Time 1 and Time 2 for year 1 and year 2). Two coders rated the same children during the live observational assessments. The ICC results suggested acceptable reliability for all of the scales coded at almost all time points (r = .23 – .93, with the majority of the scales at 0.70 or above, denoting good to excellent reliability. The positive findings also suggested that the PTAR is a tool that observers can be trained to use reliably in a live coding situation."
## [510] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the scores was adequate, with Cronbach's alphas of 0.94 for the FSQ-20 scores and 0.85 for the FSQ-8 scores. Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest correlation with a two-week interval was strong (n=102): r=0.88 for the FSQ-20 and r=0.83 for the FSQ-8."
## [511] "Test-retest Reliability: From a subsample of participants (n = 122) who performed the BLAST twice, Pearson's correlation coefficient (Rho) and the intraclass correlation coefficient - (icc) were used. Results showed that the most reliable measure is the median reaction time (Pearson Rho = 0.93, icc = 0.90); most measures reached 0.6 or higher with both methods, with a maximum reliability for INTENSITY (Rho = 0.8, icc = 0.81) and a minimum reliability for MEAN_DURATION (Rho = 0.49, icc = 0.49). These values correlate with test-retest reliability measures of standard tests of executive functions (Lowe & Rabbitt, 1998)."
## [512] "Internal consistency: Cronbach alpha was .88 for the total score and .90 and .76 respectively, for the Congruence/Experiential Fluidity and Incongruence/Experiential Constriction factors. Test-retest reliability: The ‘pure’ test–retest correlation in the scores from a sophomore group that did not receive training between assessments was .61 (n = 34; p < .001), the same as the overall test–retest value for data from all groups combined, indicating good reliability of the SI-22-F scores. For data from the other groups, with the exception of the two very small subsamples (anxiety and psychiatric clinics), test–retest correlations were large and ranged between .52 and .79, confirming adequate test–retest reliability of the scale scores from student samples and alcohol and breast cancer patients."
## [513] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alphas were 0.86 and 0.83, and corrected item‐total correlations were in the 0.58–0.80 and 0.48–0.73 range in the first and second samples, respectively. For emerging (n = 191) and young adults, Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 and 0.86, and corrected item‐total correlations were in the 0.52–0.81 and 0.53–0.75 range, respectively. For mothers, voluntarily childless and infertile women, Cronbach's alphas were 0.87, 0.90 and 0.81, and corrected item‐total correlations were in the 0.55–0.77, 0.59–0.83 and 0.41–0.74 range, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest reliability estimate over a 4‐week period was acceptable, with an ICC of 0.75%and 95%CI [0.58, 0.85]."
## [514] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.720. For the sections within the measure, alpha values were 0.836, 0.725 and 0.697 for section 2, section 3 and section 4, respectively. Test–retest Reliability: Using a pilot sample of nurses (n = 50), the measure was administered twice within a 2-week period, with test–retest reliability shown as 0.75 (p < 0.05)."
## [515] "Internal Consistency: The overall Cronbach’s alpha for DASH-NP was 0.92 (self-reporting subgroup 0.90; interview subgroup 0.94). Test-Retest Reliability: With a mean time interval between 13 ± 10 days, the ICC for DASH-NP was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 – 0.98, p < 0.001, n = 31) with a Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) of 11 points out of 100. When the overall group was divided into those who completed the initial assessment by self-reporting and the follow-up by interview (0.96) and when both were by completed by interview (0.94)."
## [516] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values collected for analysis of the single-item measure (social media exposure). Using a national sample (n = 1152) to assess content- (CSM) and user-oriented social media (USM) risk information exposure pertaining to both a micro dust issue and an earthquake issue, alpha values were as follows: micro dust, CSM = 0.88, USM = 0.82; earthquake, CSM = 0.88, USM = 0.83."
## [517] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.94 (Internal management) and 0.90 (external influence). The third factor (Notoriety), due to having only 2 items, did not report an alpha value. For the items within the dimensions comprising the S.N.A.P., alpha values displayed as 0.92 (physical security), 0.93 (procedural security), and 0.71 (relational skills). Interrater Reliability: Dual ratings by Responsible Medical Officer (RMO) and Primary Nurse were obtained for the sample (n = 110), to compare RMO and primary nurse ratings for the same patient. A Pearson correlation coefficient score of 0.732 (p < 0.01) was shown. In conducting the same Pearson test separately on the physical, procedural and relational dimensions, significant results at p < 0.01 (two tailed) were shown. However, it was also observed that primary nurses tended to rate higher than RMOs."
## [518] "Internal consistency: Across the subcomponents, Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.537-0.806 and 0.562-0.797 respectively, in Mayangna/Miskito and mTurk samples. Test-retest reliability: The correlations for satisfaction (r = 0.388, n = 70, p < .001) and alternatives (r = 0.449, n = 70, p < .001) across the 2 years were both significant, although the correlation between commitment scores wass only marginally so (r = 0.236, n = 70, p = .049), and investment scores exhibited no significant association (r = 0.046, n = 70, p = .703). It should be noted that although long test–retest intervals are generally preferred in order to eliminate the effects of memory, it would be expected that such a long interval (2 years) with a potentially dynamic measure would result in much lower levels of stability."
## [519] "Internal Consistency: In a pretest sample (n = 229), the constructs within the model displayed alpha values of 0.82 (functional congruity), 0.92 (self-image congruity), 0.80 (social visibility of hotel consumption), and 0.95 (brand attitude)."
## [520] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .844. Test-Retest Reliability: With a one-week interval, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .76 (p<.001; n=100)."
## [521] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients demonstrated satisfactory reliability for the first-order factors (alpha values ranging from 0.82–0.86 in Study 1; 0.79–0.85 in Study 2. Test-retest Reliability: The 2-month and 3-month test-retest reliability of the SRS, tested in a subgroup of Sample 2 (n = 97), showed Pearson correlations of .68 and .56, respectively."
## [522] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for each form of the assessment, with all alpha values displaying at 0.70 and above. Moreover, of the 10 different forms, only three forms had reliability coefficients under 0.80 (i.e., Version B in Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 5). Inter-rater Reliability: A teacher unfamiliar with the assessment randomly scored 6% (n = 109) of the assessments. The teacher was given only the scoring guide developed by the researcher, which emulates likely 'real world' scenarios. Results showed overall percent exact agreement as 94%. Percent exact agreement per grade were: Grade 1 (92%), Grade 2 (98%), Grade 3 (94%), Grade 4 (93%), Grade 5 (96%)."
## [523] "Internal Consistency: Across the studies, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.78 to 0.93 for the BFTS overall. Test–retest Reliability: The BFTS was administered twice in a 3-week period in a sample of adopted Korean American emerging adults, ages 18-30 years. The second administration occurred after participants had completed a multistage Korean language training protocol. Results for Time 1 (n = 79; average age at adoption = 5.44 months) and Time 2 (n = 66; average age at adoption = 5.25 months) showed significant correlation (r = .85, p < .01)."
## [524] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha of the overall score was at least 0.85, with a reliability of at least 0.80. Split-half Reliability: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.85 for sample 1 (Psychosomatic in-patients; n = 246), and 0.92 sample 2 (Psychosomatic out-patients; n = 559). Alpha values for the subgroups in each sample were all at least 0.70, and at least 0.80 in half the cases."
## [525] "Test Reliability: The means and standard deviations for the appraisal ratings in the samples from Study 2 (n = 202) and Study 3 (n = 200) were compared. Results were shown to be similar between the studies regarding CSI Cue Presence: 55.9 (7.04) for Study 2; 56.0 (7.58) for Study 3. Similar results were also seen for CSI Cue Absence: 53.6 (8.81) for Study 2; 56.1 (7.17) for Study 3. Together, the results suggested good reliability."
## [526] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.80 for the 5-item GDS, which is comparable to the alpha value of 0.86 for the 15-item GDS. Test-retest Reliability: The 5-item GDS was administered twice by phone by the same research assistant (n = 20), within a 7- to 12-day interval. Results showed the mean difference between test and retest scores as −0.25 (95% CI, −0.73 - 0.22). Test Sensitivity and Specificity: The 5-item GDS had a sensitivity of 0.97, specificity of 0.85, and global diagnostic accuracy of 0.90. For the target population (with a depression prevalence of 46%), the positive predictive value of the 5-item GDS was 0.85, and the negative predictive value was 0.97."
## [527] "Internal Consistency: For the categories of variables, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.74 (Emotions of music; Emotions of narration) and 0.93 (Image of target group). Inter-rater Reliability: The inter-coder reliability, measured by Cronbach's alpha, ranged from .37 to .70. Disagreements were settled through discussion, and the subcategories' operational definitions were refined, resulting in an updated codebook. A second pilot test followed (N = 30), following further coder training, improved inter-coder reliability to an average of .80."
## [528] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha values ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 (Sample 1) and from 0.88 to 0.90 for Sample 2. Test-retest Reliability: The instrument was given twice in a 6 month period to sample 2, participants who had not changed jobs during this time (n = 48). Results showed all stability coefficients to be highly significant (Impulse control: rtt = .57; Overcoming internal resistances: rtt = .68; Resisting distractions: rtt = .59)."
## [529] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest analysis revealed no significant differences when the participants of the study were evaluated by the EILP-G questionnaire two times within 1 week (ICC=0.859–0.987). This was also true for the reliability analysis of the individual test items from 1 to 10 (ICC=0.842–0.976; p=0.001). Inter-Tester Reliability: The intertester estimation demonstrates excellent results (n=8; ICC=0.820, p=0.001)."
## [530] "Test–retest Reliability: The PAM-MH was given twice to the control group (n = 18) within a 14-week interval. The results showed good test–retest reliability (Pearson's r = 0.74)."
## [531] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.87 for the CKAQ-R. Test-retest Reliability: The scores from a group of students (n = 101) in grades 1, 3, and 6 who took the CKAQ-R twice in a one-month period were compared. Results showed a correlation of 0.88 between the two test periods. Average inter-item correlations of the 24-item revised scale was r = .201."
## [532] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.92 for the GRiPS. Test–retest Reliability: The GRiPS was administered 3 months after the first survey, as a follow‐up assessment in Study 2 (n = 115). Results showed a 3‐month test–retest reliability score of r = 0.80."
## [533] "Test-retest reliability: A non-clinical subsample filled in SCORE-15 on two occasions one to two weeks apart. Correlations between measurement 1 and 2 were .81 (95% CI .66‒.91) for the total scale, .56 (95% CI .20‒.81) for strengths, .80 (95% CI .57‒.93) for difficulties and .69 (95% CI .47–.87) for communication (p < .001 for all comparisons). Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha for SCORE-15 for the adults in families with clinical contact (n = 204 without imputation) was .82 for difficulties, .73 for strengths and .69 for communication, indicating acceptable internal reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was also calculated based on family mean values for clinical families (n = 151 without imputation), resulting in α = .82, .75 and .71, respectively. Internal consistency for healthy families (n = 67, family mean average without imputation) was not quite adequate, with α = .57 for difficulties, .68 for strengths and .53 for communication."
## [534] "Internal Consistency: For the child-report, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.81; for the parent-report, the overall alpha value was 0.82. Test–retest Reliability: Using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) in the German sample (n = 97), the APLES showed satisfactory retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.70) in all scales in the child- and parent-report."
## [535] "Inter-Rater Reliability: Twenty five per cent of the sample (n = 12) were randomly selected and coded by the second author for the purposes of inter-rater reliability analysis. The percentage of agreement of depth of awareness codes (80.7%), duration of awareness codes (79.9%), and all 12 codes (66.3%) was substantial. There was a substantial amount of agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977) between coders when judging the depth of the D-DACS hierarchy a participant's awareness was directed (κ = .71) and when judging the duration of awareness (κ = .64). Not all 12 codes were calculated, due to the relative number of observations to the number of possible codes which an independent university statistician advised would be unreliable to calculate and report."
## [536] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha ranged from .82-.95 across the factors. Test-retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability of the factors was examined through Pearson correlations among them in the test and the retest, using a subsample of licensed psychologists (n = 787) who are members of the Spanish Psychological Association. Correlations ranged from .50-.79 across the factors."
## [537] "Internal Consistency: Using the 14 items and the entire sample (n = 694), Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.912 for the CV‐PAM. For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.778 (Believes an Active Role is Important), 0.882 (Confidence and Knowledge to Take Action), and 0.828 (Taking Action)."
## [538] "Internal consistency: α = .96. Test-retest reliability: Temporal stability was shown by the correlation between the scores before the treatment and after 1 month (r = .85, SE = .06, p < .001, n = 29)."
## [539] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients showed the SOMS with an overall alpha value of 0.85. Test-retest Reliability: Applied to 10% of the sample ( n= 60), the SOMS was administered twice in a 2-week period. Results showed the means of the two tests to be extremely close to each other, with the t value at 0.428 and the P value at 0.068. the means of tests that had a 2‐week period gap were extremely close to each other on the scale. The t value of th epaired double test was 0.428, and itsPvalue was 0.068. No meandifference was found between the means of the first and the last testbetween the two dependent groups"
## [540] "Test–retest Reliability: A subscample of participants from Experiment 2 (n = 36) were retested between 2 months, 0 days, to 3 months, 25 days, following the initial testing (median 2 months, 9 days; mean 2 months, 13 days). The results (Experiment 3) which compared the difference in scores between test and retest, as well as the t and P values of paired-samples t-tests, showed that all differences were in the direction representing improved performance. The maximum improvement in performance on retest was 0.7 dB on the different voices 0 degrees condition. Minimum change was 0.1 dB on the spatial advantage and total advantage conditions. There were no significant differences in performance between test and retest on any LiSN-S measure (p ranged from .080 to .862)."
## [541] "Internal Consistency: After removing 3 items from the original PMQ (Adams et al., 2004) due to having the lowest correlation coefficients, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were re-calculated. Results showed an overall alpha value of 0.703, suggesting that the PMQ's internal consistency continued to be good; with all 26 items, the alpha value was 0.73. Test-retest Reliability: The revised PMQ used Pearson's correlation coefficients with a sample of patients (n = 18) to recalculate test-retest reliability. The resulting coefficient of r = 0.77 was indicative of adequate test–retest reliability."
## [542] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.92 for the 15 items comprising the problems list within the PSIT. For the subscales, alpha values displayed as 0.91 (Negative affect), 0.77 (Anxiety and PTSS), and 0.79 (Social and self-image). Test-retest Reliability: The PSIT was completed twice within a 30-day period (n = 128). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) displayed results of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81–0.90), indicative of good test-retest reliability. Test Sensitivity and Specificity: The following cut-off values represent maximum sensitivity and specificity, respectively: 7 on subscale 1 (Negative affect: 89.6% and 83.4%), 3 on subscale 2 (Anxiety and PTSS: 94.4% and 90.3%), and 4 on subscale 3 (Social and self-image: 85.7% and 90.7%)."
## [543] "Inter-rater reliability: The LOF Mobility Scale had good inter-rater reliability for assessment of LOF prior to hospitalization (N = 131, kappa = 0.66, p < .001) and at the time of CICU admission (N = 131, kappa = 0.71, p < .001)."
## [544] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed overall alpha values of 0.97 (Time 1) and 0.96 (Time 2) for the MEWS. Test-retest Reliability: The MEWS was administered at baseline (Time 1) to 79 cases and 29 controls. Two separate follow-up assessments of the ADHD cases occurred at 3 months (Time 2) and 6 months (Time 3) after baseline. The mean interval between Time 1 and Time 3 was 6.4 months (SD = 0.58 months). Pearson's correlation showed that at Time 2 and Time 3, (ADHD: n = 79; n = 55), the MEWS scores demonstrated satisfactory retest reliability (r = .63, 95% CI = [.42, .80], p < .0001). Test Sensitivity and Specificity: Results of ROC analysis, including the area under the curve (AUC), indicated excellent discriminant capacity. A score of 15 on the MEWS provides the optimal balance of sensitivity (.90) and specificity (.90), suggesting a cut-off for disorder threshold."
## [545] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.82, 0.86, 0.84, and 0.87 for Malevolence, Benevolence, Resistance, and Engagement, respectively. Test-retest Reliability: A subsample of participants (n = 15) completed the BAVQ twice in a one-week period. Results showed high intraclass correlations, ranging from 0.85 to 0.93, indicating that the characteristics being measured were well defined and stable over the short term. Test Sensitivity: Score distribution showed that malevolence was distributed bimodally, peaking at scores of 4, 5 and 6; benevolence scores peaked at 0, 1 and 2 (i.e., no or low benevolence), and were evenly spread thereafter. So, the provisional cut-off point for malevolence was a score of 4 or more, and 3 or more for benevolence. Results showed that all those known to believe their voices to be 'benevolent', and 90% of those believing their voices to be 'malevolent', were correctly classified by the BAVQ."
## [546] "Internal Consistency: For the constructs, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.94 (Intention), 0.90 (Behavioral beliefs; Control beliefs), 0.89 (Attitude), and 0.71 (Perceived behavioral control). Test-retest Reliability: The model's items were administered twice within a 2-week interval to a subsample (n = 148) of participants, showing a test-retest reliability value of 0.79."
## [547] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.87 (Quality of fantasy), 0.84 (Imaginary relatives), and 0.90 (Imaginary playmate). Test-retest Reliability: Using a convenience subsample (N = 76; males = 38, females = 38), the FFQ was administered twice over a 2-week period (15 days), to assess the factorial structure. The correlation computed between the factor scores at W1 (Wave 1) and at W2 (Wave 2), indicated good reliability of the latent structure: Quality of fantasy (r = 0.73), Imaginary relatives (r = 0.76), Imaginary playmate (r = 0.76). Moreover, the three factorial dimensions appear to show significant consistency between W1 and W2."
## [548] "Internal Consistency: Using a sample tested in a quantitative pilot study (N=36; ages 18–43 years; 18 women, 18 men), Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha value of 0.83."
## [549] "Test-retest Reliability: In a pilot study (n = 27), the OMPSQ was administered twice in a 1 week interval. Results demonstrated an acceptable Pearson product moment on a total score of 0.83 (range = 0.63 - 0.97)."
## [550] "Test-Retest Reliability: There was a strong correlation between the FoMOsf at Time 1 and the FoMOsf at Time 2 (r = .717, p < .001). On average, participants (n = 43) completed the FoMOsf twice within 53.7 days, from Time 1 to Time 2."
## [551] "Internal Consistency: The Y-BOCS-II demonstrated high internal consistency (alpha = 0.90), as did the obsessions and compulsions subscales (alpha = 0.87 and 0.88, respectively). The internal consistency of the Y-BOCS-II Symptom Checklist was also high (alpha = 0.88). Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest reliability of the Y-BOCS-II was calculated in a subset of the sample (n=25) who completed a second rating 1 week after the initial evaluation, and was found adequate (ICC = 0.63)."
## [552] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.98 for the SBQ, demonstrating high internal consistency. Pearson's Product Moment correlations for all SBQ items were found to be significant, showing high internal reliability. Test–retest Reliability: The SBQ tested a sub-sample (n = 30) twice in a 4-week period. The test-retest displayed significant positive correlations between the first and second administrations (r = .93, p < .001), indicating high reliability."
## [553] "Internal Consistency: The Kuder-Richardson Coefficient showed good internal consistency (0.887) for the one-factor model. Test-retest Reliability: The retests were carried out 10–15 days after the initial tests with a subsample of individuals (n = 130). The Intraclass-Correlation Coefficient of 0.926 between the test and the retest demonstrated excellent temporal stability."
## [554] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.70, indicative of adequate internal consistency. Interrater Reliability: Using a sample of participants recruited from the community (n = 10), the MT scores were compared by 2 independent raters for all MT items. The scores for each interviewer were identical, resulting in intraclass correlations of 1 for all test items. Test Sensitivity and Specificity: The area under the curve (AUC) was .78 for the sample (n = 168), with analysis indicating that the optimal criterion score was between 5.5 and 6.5. Using an MT score of 6, a sensitivity of .80 and specificity of .65 were obtained for classifying participants as impaired on the basis of their MoCA score. On the basis of a total score of 6 or less, 25% of the community sample and 23% of the hospital sample were classified as impaired on the MT."
## [555] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.89 for the full PScS. For the subscales, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.86 (Psychological resources scarcity), 0.85 (Material scarcity), and 0.84 (Time scarcity). Test-retest Reliability: The PScS was administered twice in a 2-month period (n = 146; between 8–10 weeks), to assess temporal stability. Results showed the coefficients of stability for the full PScS (r = .84, p < .01), time scarcity subscale (r = .81, p < .01), psychological resources scarcity subscale (r = .78, p < .01), and material scarcity subscale (r = .71, p < .01) met the traditional minimum standard of reliability (≥.70) as described by Terwee et al. (2007) in their evaluation of survey measurement properties. The results suggested that perceived scarcity scores are overall reasonably stable over time."
## [556] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the entire sample (n = 128) was 0.793; for the patients (n = 100), it was 0.753. The results showed that the NAT items adequately measure a single unidimensional construct. Inter-rater Reliability: Across the three items of the NAT, median weighted kappa for accomplishment score was .98 (ranging between .95–1.0) For error agreement, kappas were not used because of unequal marginals (as most participants made no errors on most items). Percent agreement was calculated as the number of participants for whom both raters agreed on the presence or absence of an error; the median agreement was 98% (ranging between 70–100%). The median percent agreement on the number of times a particular error occurred was 95% (ranging between 70–100%)."
## [557] "Test Sensitivity: In testing the sample (n = 29), results indicated that recognition memory measures on the LPT were insensitive to cognitive impairments in these children; all students achieved scores of 80% or higher on these tasks, as children with SLDs in reading or writing were easily able to pass the recognition subtests of the LPT; more variability in performance was found on the harder subtests. The difference between performance on easy and hard subtests was related to greater difficulties with working memory. The authors noted that good effort tests should be as insensitive as possible to actual cognitive impairments. Moreover, they noted that the LPT showed promise as a measure of both invalid responding, while also being sensitive to genuine learning impairments."
## [558] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's α was .97 (p < .01) for the SFSAD, and for each subscale ranged from .94 to .98. Test-Retest Reliability: Pearson's correlation coefficient of the test–retest reliability (n = 30) for the SFSAD total score was .99 (p < .01), and for each subscale was also high (ranging from .97 to .99)."
## [559] "Internal Consistency: For the illness self-concept, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.69 for the total sample (n = 26)."
## [560] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed level alpha values for each of the four data sets, as well as for the whole sample (n = 525). Alpha values ranged from 0.94 to 0.97 across the four countries, in accord with results reported for the original instrument (CDS; Dijkstra, Buist, & Dassen, 1996). For the English version of the CDS, used to assess the total Canadian sample (n = 116), the overall alpha value was 0.94. Inter-rater Reliability: For the Canadian subsample assessed (n = 55), the English version of the CDS displayed Kappa values ranging between 0.27 and 0.80, which indicated fair to substantial inter-rater reliability. For the Canadian data set, the inter-rater reliability had a lower number of participants (n = 55) due to data being available from patients of only two nursing homes."
## [561] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value 0.91 for the patient for self-evaluations and 0.90 for informant evaluations. For the subscales, alpha values were 0.88 and 0.85 for self and informants (Prospective memory), and 0.81 for self and 0.81 for informant's reports (Retrospective memory). Test-retest Reliability: The VATAmem was tested twice between 24 hrs and 3 days (n = 15). Pearson correlations showed a high significant coefficient between test and retest (r = .92, p < 0.001, d = 4.70). Test Sensitivity: The VATAmem identified 15 patients as being unaware of their memory deficits while the PRMQ identified 28 patients (chi-square = 12.68, p = .001, φ = 0.50), suggesting that the VATAmem diagnostic criteria may be more conservative, but also less prone to false positives than the PRMQ. Also, 14 of 15 patients (93.3%) identified by the VATAmem as unaware of their deficits, were also classified by the PRMQ."
## [562] "Test-Retest Reliability: With a one-week interval, most questions (n = 16; 73%) had acceptable test-retest correlations, most questions (n = 17; 77%) had a medium-high correlation for resident-representative pairs, and most (n = 19; 86%) had low levels of missing data."
## [563] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the PF was assessed using Coefficient H = 0.91. Test-Rest Reliability: With a 3-month interval, The mean PF total scale score at Time 1 and 2 was 9.09 (SD = 3.70) and 9.34 (SD = 3.38), respectively, and test–retest reliability was acceptable, r(N = 200) = 0.73, p < 0.001."
## [564] "Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the FoS items were assessed using Coefficient H, which is considered a more appropriate measure of internal consistency than Cronbach's alpha as it takes into account the unequal factor loadings and measurement errors associated with one-factor congeneric models (Hancock & Mueller, 2006). The internal consistency for the final five-item FoS scale as measured by Coefficient H was 0.93. Test-Retest Reliability: The mean FoS total scale score at Time 1 and 2 was 14.19 (SD = 5.17) and 15.58 (SD = 5.25), respectively, and the test–retest reliability was also acceptable, r(N= 200) = 0.76, p < 0.001."
## [565] "Inter-rater Reliability: OTDRS trained in providing the TSNT were used to determine inter-rater reliability. Results showed that in a randomly selected subset of the sample (n = 40), the naming portion had higher reliability (k = .80; 95% CI [.69, .91]) than the function portion (k = .54; 95% CI [.379, .700]); from this, the authors chose to use traffic sign naming as the measure for the study."
## [566] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.82 for the SCAB. For the factors, alpha values ranged from 0.69 (Creative Cognitive Style) to 0.82 (Creative Engagement). Test-retest Reliability: A subsample (n = 36) was administered the SCAB twice in a one-month interval. The results showed the following test-retest reliability coefficients: .80 (total scale), .83 (Creative Engagement), .86 (Creative Cognitive Style), .90 (Spontaneity), .78 (Tolerance), and .70 (Fantasy). These results suggest that the SCAB is measuring a stable trait, and is not evoking a social desirability response set."
## [567] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.85 for the IPSCC Scale. Test–retest Reliability: The IPSCC was administered twice in a 2-week interval to a sample of individuals (n = 27) who were not part of the original sample. The results indicated good reliability (r = .98, p < .001)."
## [568] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.96 for the checklist. Inter-rater Reliability: Using a second evaluator to assess a random sample of service plans (n = 101), a correlation of .80 was observed for inter-rater reliability."
## [569] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients showed satisfactory internal consistency: “Habit and Negative Affect Reduction” (N = 18 items), alpha = .94, and “Pleasure and Stimulation” (N = 7 items), alpha = .79."
## [570] "Test-retest Reliability: A sample of middle-aged men and women (n = 94; ages 21 to 78 years) was used to test the CSRQ. A separate test–retest of each item was conducted, and an 8-day interval and weighted kappa values were calculated. Moreover, the test–retest was carried out by the same researchers at all three data collection sites, to minimize the risk of bias by differences in instructions given. The results showed that 41% of the items had substantial to almost perfect agreement (kappa values ranging from .65-.97); the remaining items showed moderate agreement (kappa values ranging from .41-.60). Collectively, the results support good test-retest reliability."
## [571] "Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alphas for the ten subscales ranged from .78 to .88. Test-retest reliability: Two-month test–retest reliability for a subsample (n = 100) ranged from .44 to .73. Only one of the scales (Managing Mood) had unacceptable test–retest reliability (<.50)."
## [572] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients from the LEAU sample (n = 1,848) displayed an alpha value of 0.88 for the TRD items, indicative of good high internal consistency."
## [573] "Test-retest Reliability: Partial correlations between prenatal and postnatal BCEs scores, controlling for number of days between prenatal and postnatal administration (M= 194.77 days, SD= 58.00, range = 91–311), indicated excellent test-retest stability (r = .80, p < .01). Fisher's \"r to z\" tests indicated comparable (non-significant) test-retest stability for English-speaking (r = .80, p < .01, n =59) and Spanish speaking women (r =.78, p < .01, n = 18). Difference score analyses indicated that 44% (n= 34) of the follow-up sample reported the exact same total prenatal and postnatal BCEs score, and 83% (n= 64) of the follow-up sample reported postnatal BCEs scores within one point of their prenatal BCEs scores."
## [574] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.85 for the SEQ-SS. An alpha value of 0.81 was displayed for both subscales. Test-retest Reliability: A subsample (n = 19) of children (average age = 11) filled out the SEQ-SS on 2 separate occasions, approximately 1 week apart (range = 6 to 11 days). Intraclass correlations demonstrated good stability, with an overall ICC value of .90 for the SEQ-SS. Test-retest correlations for the Academic/Social Stress and Separation/Discipline Stress subscales were .79 and .91, respectively."
## [575] "Test–retest Reliability: During a 5-week period, teams of students (N = 123) exchanging messages with each other via an online forum filled in a short questionnaire containing the SISI, to measure identification with the small group. The results showed a significant drop in identification over time, possibly reflecting weekly changes in circumstances within these groups. Despite the drop off, correlations of the SISI over weeks were shown to be high and significant (average r = .59). Average correlations from 1 week to the next week were r = .67. The average after a 2-week interval was r = .57, and after a 3-week interval, it was r = .53. Overall, test–retest reliability was seen by the authors to be adequate, especially given the considerable changes in identification over time."
## [576] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .84-.89. Test-Retest Reliability: The second phase of the study conducted two tests to evaluate stability over time of the shared cultural characteristics scale items that were retained after Phase 1. A sample of employees from Organization B (n = 185) and Organization C (n = 170) received the first questionnaire in March and the follow-up questionnaire in June. The first test yielded reliability coefficients of 0.82 for affiliation, 0.88 for community embeddedness, 0.92 for respecting elders, 0.89 for harmony, 0.85 for faith, 0.87 for brotherhood, 0.85 for morality, 0.91 for future orientation and 0.95 for conformity. The second test showed reliability coefficients of 0.85 for affiliation, 0.89 for community embeddedness, 0.90 for respecting elders, 0.87 for harmony, 0.83 for faith, 0.85 for brotherhood, 0.80 for morality, 0.87 for future orientation and 0.90 for conformity."
## [577] "Internal Consistency: The final 19-item scale had a Cronbach of 0.85. Internal a consistency for all subscales, with the exception of subscale 5 (negative affect: 0.59), was good, with Cronbach a ranging from 0.81 to 0.82. Test-Retest Reliability: With a two-week interval, the ICC for all items (n = 53) was 0.85 (F (76,76) 12.32, p<.001, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.90.), indicating ‘good to excellent’ reliability (Koo & Li, 2016). The ICC for the final 19-item measure was 0.82 (F = (76, 76) 10, p<.001, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.88), indicating ‘moderate to good’ reliability."
## [578] "Internal Consistency: For each of the TIV dimensions, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.85 to 0.90. Test-retest Reliability: The TIV tested a subsample of participants (n = 102) twice within a 3-week period. Results showed that the TIV scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were highly correlated (r=0.77, p < .001), establishing the scale's test-retest reliability."
## [579] "Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha of the PRE subscale was 0.652 and Cronbach’s alpha of the UT subscale was 0.723. Test–retest reliability: For the modified 2- MEV scale, the correlation coefficients of PRE and UT were 0.65 (N = 105, p = 8.19E-14) and 0.70 (N = 105, p < 2.20E-16), respectively."
## [580] "Internal Consistency: domains. The authors tested for internal consistency in the barriers and facilitators items by using Spearman-Brown split-half reliability for 2-item domains (n = 11), with a criterion for adequate reliability of coefficient > 0.80, and Cronbach's alpha for 3-item domains (n = 1) with adequate reliability coefficients > 0.70. As no domains had adequate internal consistency, the TDF questions were mapped onto the COM-B system to examine the barriers and facilitators to CPT implementation. A Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each COM-B component (Capability: α = 0.77; Opportunity: α = 0.60; Motivation: α = 0.75)."
## [581] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha was .91. Internal consistency for individual groups was as follows: non-students .94, STEM students .92, HS students .92, women .94, and men .93. Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability at 6–8 weeks was r = .85, p < .001, N = 71."
## [582] "Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.71. Test‐retest reliability: Good test‐retest reliability of the BM DJGLS was demonstrated by a strong positive correlation (r = 0.93, n = 81, P < 0.05) between the initial BM DJGLS responses with those gathered after approximately 2 weeks, indicating stability of the measure over a short period of time."
## [583] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values of 0.89 (Guilt) and 0.93 (Shame). Test-retest Reliability: The GSQ-APMI was administered twice to a subsample (n = 10) within a 6-week interval. High test-retest correlations were found for Guilt (r = 0.69, p < 0.001) and Shame (r = 0.71, p < 0.05) (Dancey & Reidy, 2017)."
## [584] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the NLRN sample (n = 129) ranged from 0.78-0.80; for the corresponding preceptor sample (n = 129), alpha values ranged along similar lines (0.78-0.80)."
## [585] "Internal Consistency: Reliability was assessed via McDonald's Omega (ω) coefficients (Geldhof et al., 2014). For the sample (n = 110), within- and between-person reliability displayed ω results as 0.84 and 0.96, respectively."
## [586] "Internal Consistency: Reliability was assessed via McDonald's Omega (ω) coefficients (Geldhof et al., 2014). The results showed a ω value of .78 for negative affect and .79 for positive affect on the within-person level; for the between-person level, the results were .95 and .87, respectively. Reliability (ω) on the within and the between-person level for the sample (n = 84) was .93 and .98, respectively."
## [587] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.85 for the DES-SF, using the original dataset. Using the data from the new sample (n = 229) resulted in an overall alpha value of 0.84."
## [588] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha value of 0.87 in the National sample, and 0.86 in the North Carolina HMO sample. it was 0.86. Test-retest Reliability; Using a random subsample from the North Carolina HMO sample (n = 306), results showed an alpha value of 0.71 for test-retest reliability within a 2-month period between test administrations."
## [589] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha value of 0.84 for the observed total score of the PPFI. Test–retest Reliability. The temporal stability of the PPFI was examined in 2 samples: adult professionals from a multinational corporation (n = 276; Sample C), and a community sample of adults from the U. S. Mid-Atlantic region (n = 303; Sample D). Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were computed between each of the 3 PPFI subscales, as well as the 15-item total score from baseline (Time 1) to 4-month follow-up (Time 2). Test–retest reliability was r = .55 for Avoidance, r = .57 for Acceptance, r = .61 for Harnessing, and r = .59 for total PF scores (ps < .001)."
## [590] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.812 for the ARMS. Split-half Reliability: Adequate split half reliability was displayed for the ARMS (0.829). Test-retest Reliability: The ARMS was administered twice within a 3-week period to a subsample (n = 67) of participants. The results showed a test-retest reliability of 0.902, indicating high consistency over time."
## [591] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.95 for the ETI. Domain alpha values were: 0.86 (physical abuse domain), 0.92 (emotional abuse domain), 0.92 (sexual abuse domain), and 0.74 (general trauma domain). Inter-rater Reliability: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) measured agreement between 2 raters who were blind to the other’s ratings. High levels of agreement were shown: physical (ICC = .97), emotional (ICC = .97), sexual abuse (ICC = .99), and general trauma (ICC = .94). Test-retest Reliability: Pearson correlations assessed test and retesting done in a group of participants (n = 10) with or without PTSD, by 2 different raters within a 2–4 week period; both raters were blind to each other’s assessments. Domain results showed high levels of agreement between test and retest: physical abuse (r = .97), emotional abuse (r = .98), and sexual abuse (r = .99), with lower levels of agreement for general trauma (r = .51)."
## [592] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.85 for the VPD. Test-retest Reliability: The VPD was completed by a subsample (n = 25) twice in a 1-week interval, reporting a retest reliability of r = 0.82."
## [593] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's Alpha coefficients of all dimensions' scores showed good reliability, with alpha values ranging from 0.590 to 0.840. Test-retest Reliability: The instrument was administered twice in a 2-week period to a subsample of teachers (n = 90). The results showed coefficients of stability ranging from 0.608 to 0.741, indicative of acceptable test-retest reliability."
## [594] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha reliability was acceptable for the total FIES:CI scale (r = .770–.785). Reliability results for the factors showed alpha values of were 0.798 (NI) and 0.847 (PI). Test–Retest Reliability: The FIES:CI was examined for stability over a 2-week interval (n = 134 members of 38 families). Test–retest scores were calculated on each of the 9 items and the total score while accounting for the intra-class (family members within each family code) correlation. The T1 to T2 correlation scores ranged from r = +.75 for Financial Concerns to r = +.90 for Caregiving Strategies, which were indicative of excellent stability."
## [595] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.91 for the SNI. Test-retest Reliability: A subset (n = 29) of the larger normative sample completed the SNI twice within approximately five weeks after the original administration. The results apart indicated adequate to excellent reliability scores, ICC = .79, with a 95% confidence interval of .547–.903. Also, the average SNI scores at initial testing (M = 113.8; SD = 17.5) did not differ from those at retest (M = 117.4; SD = 17.5), t(28) = 1.42, p = .167, d = .21."
## [596] "Internal Consistency: Omega coefficients for SPQ-B total in the psychiatric group (n = 50) and the non-psychiatric group (n = 202) were good (0.88 and 0.80). Omega coefficients for the SPQ-B factors were lower, albeit higher for the psychiatric group than for the controls (perceptual cognitive (0.81; 0.64), interpersonal (0.78; 0.67) and disorganized (0.73; 0.59). Test-Retest Reliability: The test-retest correlations for SPQ-B was 0.62 (p<.001)."
## [597] "Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability (2-week interval) of the combined ranked score (n = 50) from the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI; Parada, 2000) and SPPI was indicated by a moderately strong correlation when answered in response to self-report of verbal/physical victimization rs =.773 (p < .001), and a strong correlation in response to social victimization rs =.841 (p < .001)."
## [598] "Internal Consistency: Internal Consistency of the scale was indicated by a ω coefficient of .81 (95% CI, .78-.84) for the Reflectivity scale, and .86 (95% CI, .84-.88) for the Negative Expectation scale. Test-Retest Reliability: Temporal stability was assessed in a subgroup (N = 84) of the sample. This subgroup answered the DPQ-SV twice, with approximately 1 month between sessions. A correlation coefficient (r = .73 CI [.61, .81]; p < .001) was found for the association between the Reflectivity scores at Time-1 (M= 25.10, SD = 6.00, Range 10–35) and at Time-2 (M = 24.71, SD = 5.52, Range 12– 34). A correlation coefficient (r = .82 CI [.74, .88]; p < .001) was found for the association between the Negative Expectation scores at Time-1 (M = 26.26, SD = 8.39, Range 8–42) and at Time-2 (M= 27.35, SD = 8.35, Range 11–42)."
## [599] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.80 for the measure. Test-retest Reliability: The measure was administered to a subsample (n = 40) 4 months after the first testing. A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of 0.74 was found between the original and retest scores, indicating satisfactory test-retest reliability."
## [600] "Internal Consistency: Coefficient alphas for the seven scales on the CPRS-R ranged from .75 to .94 for males and .75 to .93 for females. Test-Retest Reliability: Using Pearson product-moment correlations (n = 50), the CPRS-R scales had the following 6-week test-retest correlations: .60 (p < .05) for Oppositional, .78 (p < .05) for Cognitive Problems, .71 (p < .05) for Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, .42 (p < .05) for Anxious/Shy, .60 (p < .05) for Perfectionism, .13 (p = n.s.) for Social Problems, and .55 (p < .05) for Psychosomatic."
## [601] "Internal Consistency: Results indicated acceptable internal consistency estimates for all four subscales: Trait Anger, α = .84; Anger Expression, α = .69, Anger In, α = .71; and Anger Control, α = .79. Test-retest Reliability: The AESC subscales were re-administered three times to a subset of the sample that included children on treatment for cancer (n = 130). While the results showed the Trait Anger subscale to have the highest test–retest stability across both the 6- and 12-month intervals, all the subscales showed moderate and statistically significant consistency over time."
## [602] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.94 for the CGSES. For the subscales, alpha values were 0.89 (College attendance) and 0.90 (College persistence). Test-retest Reliability: A subsample of participants (n = 18) completed the CGSES twice in a 3-week period. Alpha values of the test-retest bivariate analysis was 0.88, indicative of a high consistency level over time."
## [603] "Internal Consistency The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for both samples was 0.93. Test-Retest Reliability: With an interval of one week, the test–re-test reliability [n = 140, ICC = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.85–0.94, p < 0.001]."
## [604] "Internal Consistency: For the 6-item instrument, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.94 (sample 1; n = 115), 0.86 (sample 2; n = 202, Phase 1), and 0.87 (sample 2; n = 127, Phase 2/SBJ beliefs)."
## [605] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.80 for the PCC scale. For the subscales, alpha values were 0.77 for History and 0.82 for Culture, considered to be satisfactory, as the two subscales include a relatively small number of items that tend to substantially lower the alpha values (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). Importantly, the correlation between the two subscales was modest but statistically significant: r =.23; p < .01, confirming speculations about their relatedness. Test–retest Reliability: An English-language version of the PCC scale was administered twice within a 3-week period to a group of undergraduates (n = 40) attending the University of Dundee (Scotland). The results showed a satisfactory degree of temporal stability for the PCC scale overall between Time 1 and Time 2: r = .74; p < .001. For the subscales, r values of .80 (p < .001) and .44 (p < .01) were obtained for Culture and History, respectively."
## [606] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.96 for the NCAAPS. For the factors, alpha values ranged from 0.81 to 0.92. Test–retest Reliability: A sample of emergency ward nurses (n = 30) completed the NCAAPS twice within a 2-week period. The results showed a test–retest reliability of 0.740 (p < .001), indicating that the NCAAPS was stable across time."
## [607] "Internal Consistency: The Catastrophizing subscale showed high internal reliability of alpha = 0.93 at baseline and alpha = 0.93 at follow up. The Coping subscale’s reliability was alpha = 0.90 at baseline and alpha = 0.88 at follow up. Test-Retest Reliability: The Pearson’s correlation assessing test-retest reliability for the Catastrophizing subscale was r = 0.62 (n = 21), and for the Coping subscale was r = 0.61 (n = 21)."
## [608] "Internal Consistency: The EOS scores were calculated with the ordinal omega coefficient (Gadermann et al., 2012) for each dimension of the instrument. The results showed the ordinal omega coefficients and their confidence intervals ranging between 0.68 and 0.84. Test-retest Reliability: The temporal stability of EOS scores was evaluated using the Spearman rho correlation coefficient. The EOS was administered twice to a subsample of participants (n = 65) within a 2-week interval. The results showed the Spearman rho coefficients ranging between 0.60 and 0.69, indicative of adequate temporal stability."
## [609] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha for the entire sample (n = 656) was .830. The test-retest sample (n = 354) was alpha = .819. Test-Retest Reliability: The temporal stability of the test was adequate (r = .712)."
## [610] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.540 to 0.741 for the 10-item SCS-SF, and from 0.291 and 0.667 for the 12-item SCS-SF. Test-retest Reliability: Analysis of the pretest sample of nursing students (n = 50) was 0.617 (Pearson's correlation, 95% CI = 0.436–0.790) and 0.618 (ICC, 95% CI = 0.413–0.764), indicating fair agreement. While the 12-item form had higher test–retest reliability, the 10-item form showed acceptable reliability."
## [611] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha values were .80 for FMs (n = 56), .80 for MF's (n = 87), .81 for female controls (n = 65), and .66 for male controls (n = 58). In a new sample of 202 SRS applicants who were either diagnosed transsexuals or gender-dysphoric but not transsexual and who were participating in a 5-year prospective study, the alpha values were .92 for male applicants and .78 for female applicants (n = 82)."
## [612] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.7 for the REPQ. Test-retest Reliability: A subsample of participants (n = 73) completed the REPQ twice within a 14-day period. Pearson's correlations showed r values for the items ranging between .59 and .79 and significant results at P < .001, demonstrating fair-to-good test-retest reliability."
## [613] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega values were 0.76 and 0.79, respectively. Correcting the Cronbach’s for restriction of range yielded an estimate 0.91. Test-Retest Reliability: A relative high test-retest reliability (r = 0.74, P <.001) of the SIDI-F-SR over a 14-week period (M = 95.84 days, SD = 10.40, range = 83-116) was found using subset of women (n = 19)."
## [614] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were used with a portion of the sample (n = 1,007) to assess the items via corrected item-total correlation coefficients. Items were removed when they showed the lowest item-total correlation coefficient and also caused the alpha value of the complete ASTFW instrument to increase once removed; 17 such items were therefore removed using this procedure. Additionally, composite reliability (CR) was shown to range between 0.69 and 0.91 for the ASTFW. Test-retest Reliability: The ASTFW was administered twice within a two-week period to a sub-sample of participants (n = 34). The results showed the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) at 0.82, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.63 to 0.91 (F = 5.34, p < 0.001)."
## [615] "Internal Consistency: Using the exploratory factor analysis sample (n = 367), Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values across the factors ranging from 0.88 (BEN) to 0.95 (BAR)."
## [616] "Internal Consistency: For the sample of undergraduate students in Study 1, the Cronbach's alpha for the total scale: α = .93) as did the subscales: Monitoring Behaviors (α = .81), Controlling Behaviors (α = .79), Demeaning Behaviors α = .78), (Threatening and Aggressive Behaviors α = .69), and Jealous and Possessive Behaviors (α = .80). For the sample of undergraduate students in Study 2, the Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was α = .93, and four of the five subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability: Monitoring Behaviors (α = .83), Controlling Behaviors (α = .79), Demeaning Behaviors (α = .75), and Jealous and Possessive Behaviors (α = .79). Test-Retest Reliability: In a sample of women (n = 47), correlations among scores from the first and second administration of the Relationship Red Flags Scale supported test–retest reliability for the five dimensions of the measure (ICC ranged from .81 to .90, p < .001."
## [617] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.81 for the Persian BSCS. Further reliability was determined via an intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) test, which showed ICC values of 0.88 for the Persian BSCS, and 0.83 and 0.78 for the 2 subscales, respectively. Test-retest Reliability: A subsample of participants (n = 30) completed the Persian BSCS twice during a 2–4 week period. The results showed an ICC of 0.88 and a confidence range of 0.8–0.93, confirming repeatability."
## [618] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, the internal consistency of each motive displayed good to excellent Cronbach's alpha coefficients, ranging from 0.76 to 0.93. Test-retest Reliability: The VMQ was administered twice within a 2-week period to a subsample of adolescent participants (n = 153). Temporal stability reliability was computed utilizing a 2-week test-retest correlation. Across the factors, the test-retest correlation ranged between .60 (Recreation) and .82 (Violent reward)."
## [619] "Composite Latent Variable Reliability: CLVR = 0.85, supporting internal consistency. Test-retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability was evidenced by a substantial and statistically significant correlation between two administration points separated by a week (n = 70; r = 0.76)."
## [620] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency with Cronbach’s a was found at initial data analysis 0.96. Similarly, sensitivity data analysis excluding data of participants with one missing answer (n = 7) demonstrated a Cronbach’s a of 0.95. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest reliability of the scale was found to be very high among health care professionals suggesting that the IDPS_GR can be used to assess their perceptions over time; ICC(2,1) = 0.92 (confidence interval: 0.87–0.95)."
## [621] "Test-retest Reliability: The ANRQ-R was administered twice to a subsample (n = 1,670) of women within four weeks of their antenatal booking appointment; Time 1 was with their midwives at their first antenatal appointment; Time 2 was completed via online self-report. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) results showed the ANRQ-R to have good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.77); at the item-level, test-retest reliabilities were moderate to good (ICC range = 0.65–0.80; kappa coefficient range = 0.31–0.74)."
## [622] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha of 0.66, which was an improvement over the alpha value of 0.55 displayed in the original 10-tem instrument (PRS; Bouisson, 2002). Test-retest Reliability: The results showed intraclass correlations (ICC) between baseline and 2-year follow-up (the AMI) to be good: ICC = 0.69 (n = 343). Item Response Theory: IRT analysis used a 2-parameter probit IRT model for graded responses (GRM; Samejima, 1997) to assess item data. The IRT results showed the item discrimination (slope) ranging from 0.97 to 2.26. According to Baker's criteria (Baker, 2001), all items were shown to have moderate discrimination power that fit the GRM."
## [623] "Interrater Reliability: Agreement between paired judges ranged from 85% to 95%. Perfect agreement was observed across all judges on 85% of all patient records. Rank correlations ranged between .98 and .99. Average k values ranged from .86 to .91.The results showed high interrater reliability despite the absence of specific training for the raters. However, the raters did have clinical experience in managing dysphagia in adult patients. Test Sensitivity: To evaluate whether the FOIS was clinically sensitive to change in oral intake, the scale was applied to dietary information of acute stroke patients (n = 302) at 3 time points: on admission to the stroke unit, at 1 month post-onset, and at 6 months post-onset. The results showed that the FOIS was sensitive to change in a group of acute stroke patients who would be expected to show substantial change in oral intake of food and liquid."
## [624] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall value of 0.88 for the ESE scale among the total analytic sample (n = 447)."
## [625] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were estimated across three samples (students and employed adults), with results showing overall alpha values for PBE scale ranging from .84 to .91 (M = .88). For the subscales, alpha values ranged from .59 to .77 for Brand appeal, .71 to .76 for Brand value, and .73 to .83 for Brand recognition. Composite Reliability: The CR values for the three factors were either higher than the .70 cutoff or nearly so, ranging from .66-.90. Test-retest Reliability: The PBE scale was given twice within a two-week interval to a sample of Dutch business administration students (n = 247), and twice within a six-week interval to a sample of employed workers recruited via MTurk (n = 349). in the business administration student sample, the PBE Scale at Time 1 was significantly correlated with the PBE Scale at Time 2 (r = .70, p < .001); similar results were seen n the employed workers sample, (r = .79, p < .001), demonstrating stability over time."
## [626] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.89 using a first-wave sample (n = 346) for analysis. In a final sample (n = 150), a subsample of the first-wave sample, the instrument displayed an overall alpha value of 0.90. Composite Reliability: The instrument displayed a CR value 0.95). Inter-item Reliability: An overall value of 0.94 was reported for the instrument, indicating high reliability."
## [627] "Test-retest Reliability: The instrument was examined for its two-week test-retest reliability in a sample of adults (n = 146) who completed the instrument twice within the period. Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an alpha value of was 0.73 at time point one and 0.78 at time point two. The test-retest correlation for the scale was r = .77, p < .001, indicative of good test-retest reliability."
## [628] "Internal Consistency: The BILD-Q demonstrated good reliability across four studies, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reflecting good internal consistency (total alpha = .82; boys = .77; girls = .80). Moreover, the range of item-total correlations overall, though slightly lower in this sample, was still in the acceptable range (total = .57–.71; boys = .42–.76, girls = .52–.73). Test-retest Reliability: Over a 6-week period, a subsample of students (n = 103; 53.4 % male) allocated to the assessment-only control arm of the trial, who had data at both time-points, was assessed. Reliability over time was supported, based on acceptable intraclass correlation coefficients (overall = .74; boys = .76; girls = .69); paired-sample t-tests showed no significant change over time (overall: t (102) = 1.22, p = .224; boys: t (51) = 0.68, p = .499; girls: t (50) = 1.02, p = .315)."
## [629] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed high alpha values in both versions (0.93–0.94), with alpha levels similar to those found in studies with clinical and non-clinical samples (Abrahamsson et al., 2006; Coolidge et al., 2005, 2010). In addition, the subscales were all internally consistent. Test-retest Reliability: A sub-sample of participants (n = 109) completed the CDBS-R twice in a two-week interval. Results from the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed a strong ICC for both versions (0.94 for the 28-item long form and 0.82 for the 24-item short form). The results demonstrated that the CDBS-R is stable over a two-week period."
## [630] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all participants (n = 273) displayed an overall alpha value of 0.89. For the subscales, slightly lower alpha values were displayed: 0.79 (Attentional impulsiveness), 0.72 (Motor impulsiveness), and 0.77 (Non-planning impulsiveness). Test-retest Reliability: A subsample of participants (n = 62; all healthy controls) completed the swe-BIS twice within a 1-week interval. Pearsons correlations showed a statistically significant test-retest correlation for the swe-BIS total score (r = .78; p < .001), as well as for the subscales of Attentional (r = .63; p < .001), Motor (r = .54; p < .001) and Non-planning (r = .77; p < .001) impulsiveness."
## [631] "The internal consistency of the ICR was good with Cronbach’s α = .84 (N= 125). The retest, performed by the same rater on the same session recordings after 13 weeks on average, demonstrated a high retest reliability of r = .91 (p < .001, n = 20). Interrater reliability was good for the first pair of raters and excellent for the second pair of raters with ICC(3,1) = .93 (n = 11). Because of the high interrater agreement, scores were averaged across raters for the validity analyses."
## [632] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha for the total MTS was .91. Split-Half Reliability: The split half reliability of the measure using the odd and even method was found to be .90 (p < .001). The Cronbach's alpha for the two splits was found to be .82 and .79, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: One week test-retest reliability of the instrument on n = 45 participants was found to be r = .86."
## [633] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha for the items comprising the functioning index for the entire (0.69), Montreal (0.72), and Chennai (0.66) sample. Test-Retest Reliability: With an interval of 7 to 23 days in Montreal and 14 to 21 days in Chennai, the RAY functioning index had good test–retest reliability, ICC2,1 = 0.82, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], N = 59. For the Montreal and Chennai samples, the corresponding ICCs2,1 were 0.64, 95% CI [0.37, 0.81], N = 30, fair reliability, and 0.97, 95% CI [0.94, 0.98], N = 29."
## [634] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha scores were 0.92 for IPA and 0.85 for INA. These results confirm that the IPANATTR demonstrated high internal consistency. Test-Retest Reliability: One-week test-retest reliability (N = 46) values were 0.75 for IPA and 0.62 for INA. Four-week test-retest reliability (N = 55) values were 0.66 for IPA and 0.51 for INA. These findings may indicate that the IPANAT-TR has a stronger state component."
## [635] "Internal Consistency: For the factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed alpha values ranging from 0.80 to 0.98. Composite Reliability: For each factor, the and CR value was above 0.70. Test-retest Reliability: A convenience sample participants (n = 63) were assessed twice within a 2-week interval. During this interval, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated between two sets of scores on each factor, with the results showing ICC values greater than 0.70; the results indicated good test-retest reliability (Zheng & Sun, 2013)."
## [636] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest correlation (n = 75) was r = 0.96, with a 1-3 week interval."
## [637] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.92 for the patient version of the A-STAM and 0.92 for the clinician version. Test-Retest Reliability: With a 2-4 week interval, A-STAM (n = 15) and 0.93, 95% CI [0.79, 0.98] for the clinician A-STAM (n = 14), indicative of good test–retest reliability (Streiner, Norman, & Cairney, 2015)."
## [638] "Internal Consistency: In a pilot study with part-time MBA students (n = 226), Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.92 for the instrument. For the 2 target samples (low-wage, blue-collar and higher income, white-collar employees), alpha values were 0.86 and 0.89, respectively."
## [639] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach's alpha coefficients displayed an overall alpha value of 0.82 for the BFS. For the factors, the alpha values were as follows: 0.78 (CTLG), 0.67 (DPF), and 0.60 (GBD). The authors noted that the low alpha value for GBD is not unusual as it has only three items; moreover, from psychometric formulae, alpha is known to be very sensitive to scale length such that, long scales (scales with 10 or more items) are expected to yield high alphas while short scales yield relatively low alphas. Test-retest Reliability: The BFS was administered to participants (n = 151) across a two-week interval, with the results showing an alpha value of 0.86. For the factors, the test-retest alpha values were as follows: 0.81 (CTLG), 0.82 (DPF), and 0.70 (GBD)."
## [640] "Internal Consistency: The omega (ω) coefficient was 0.91. Test-Retest Reliability: With a mean interval of two weeks, the DAS-1 scores in Time-1 (M = 40.11, SD = 13.16, N = 36) and Time-2 (M = 39.33, SD = 14.75, N = 36) showed an ICC = 0.87."
## [641] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overall scale, NB subscale, and VP subscale were 0.77, 0.75, and 0.84, respectively, suggesting moderately high internal consistency. Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest reliability coefficients (n = 167) had ICC values of 0.79 for CAQ-8 total, 0.68 for VP subscales, and 0.68 for the NB subscales. These findings suggest moderate test–retest reliability for the Chinese CAQ-8."
## [642] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the first (n = 6 items) and second factors (n = 7 items) had moderate internal consistency, (alpha = .80) and (alpha = .70) respectively."
## [643] "Internal Consistency: The SDS-G had a very high Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the 12 items, (α=.86). Test-Retest Reliability: Three-month test-rest reliability was satisfactory in that there was a significant positive correlation between the total scores of the SDS-G at Time 1 and Time 2, r = .883, N = 16, p < .0001."
## [644] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency analyses conducted on the overall sample yielded very high McDonald’s ω coefficients, .88 to .95, for all of the ETRADQ scales. Test-Retest Reliability: Test–retest reliability (1-2 months) assessed on a subsample (n = 163: 86 COM, 77 RISK) also proved very good for all of the scales, r = .83 to .91."
## [645] "Internal Consistency: Cronbach alpha coefficients of all subscales were >0.7, the lowest was 0.740 for the items of the Cheating subscale, and the highest, i.e. 0.981, for the items of the Perjury subscale. For the overall reliability, the Cronbach's alpha value was 0.93. Test-Retest Reliability: The results of the test-retest, which were performed on a smaller sample (n=50), indicated that the participants' responses were consistent over time. All test-retest correlations were significant (p < 0.001) for all corresponding pairs of pre- and post-test variables and the lowest value of Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.72."
## [646] "Internal consistency: The internal consistency values of the 4 subscales were 𝛼 = .82 (Refrain from Eating), 𝛼 = .86 (Food as Reward), 𝛼 = .82 (Healthy Eating), and 𝛼 = .80 (Nutritional Replenishment), and ranged from .78-.86 in separate samples. Test-retest reliability: Using a two-week interval, response rate for the retest was 43.7%. A sensitivity analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) showed that the retest had a high chance (β = 0.80, α = .05, N = 166) to detect correlations of r ≥ .21. In a separate sample, positive and significant correlations between the two time points for all factors, ranging between r = .71 (p < .001) and r = .84 (p < .001), indicated high levels of test–retest reliability over 2 weeks."
## [647] "Internal Consistency: Factor 1 had an internal consistency of .89 and inter-item correlations from .43 to .65. Factor 2 had an internal consistency of .88 and inter-item correlations from .42 to .68. Cronbach’s a for the full 14-item scale was .91 and interitem correlations ranged from .17 to .68. Test-Retest Reliability: Participants in the test–retest sample (n = 55) completed Time 2 measures 14–33 days after Time 1 (M = 17.78, SD = 4.95). According to the criteria published by Cicchetti (1994), the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC (3, 1) indicated that the temporal stability of SOBBS Factor 1 (.89), SOBBS Factor 2 (.73), and the SOBBS Total Scale (.89) were excellent."
## [648] "Internal consistency: For the on-menses version (i.e., 24-hour recall), Cronbach’s α was 0.93 at Time 1 and 0.95 at Time 2, respectively. For the off-menses version (i.e., recalling the last menstrual period), the scale was internally consistent with Cronbach’s α of 0.91. Test–retest reliability: For participants whose symptoms did not change in the last 24 hours (n = 32), the test–retest reliability was satisfactory (r = 0.79, p < .0001)."
## [649] "Internal Consistency: Across four samples, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .45 to .90. Test-Retest Reliability: The results indicated a strong positive correlation between initial test scores and retest scores (M=52.78, SD=16.06; M = 51.71, SD = 15.20, respectively), r = 0.88, n = 100, p<0.01. The shared variance was 78%."
## [650] "Internal Consistency: An acceptable Cronbach’s 𝛼 of 0.741 was achieved for the measure as a whole. Most of the subscales performed below an acceptable range. Coefficient values ranged between 𝛼 = 0.003 (Impact) and 𝛼 = 0.745 (Continuity). Test-Retest Reliability: The test–retest coefficient for the RSQ overall percent scores (n = 24) was r = 0.502 for 52.17 days with a significance of p = 0.01 (two-tailed). Split-Half Reliability: The split-half reliability for the 39 RSQ items yielded a Spearman–Brown coefficient of 0.686 with n = 82."
## [651] "Split-Half Reliability: This resulted in split-half correlations by the Spearman-Brown formula of r = .983 (n = 180, p < .01) for the first test administration and r = .982 (n = 179, p < .01) for the second test administration. Test-Retest Reliability: With the average test-retest delay was 3.2 days, the Pearson product-moment correlation which describes the relationship between each subject's test and retest rating of perceived capacity (RPC) is r = .847 (n = 179, p < .01). Males and females showed similar levels of test-retest reliability, with Pearson product-moment correlations of r = .849 (n = 126, p < .01) for males and r = .818 (n = 53, p < .05) for females."
## [652] "Internal Consistency: The overall reliability analysis of the Lakota Women and Cervical Cancer Survey had a Cronbach’s 𝛼 of .743. The combined cultural practice items (n = 11) had a Cronbach’s 𝛼 of .832. The ceremony items (n = 5) had a reliability of .719, and the reliability of the language items (n = 4) was .846."
## [653] "Internal Consistency: The Cronbach's alpha values for the clinical sample, healthy sample, and overall sample were .79, .75, and .76, respectively. Test-Retest Reliability: After a 2 week interval, test-retest reliability was rs = .55, p = .01, n = 36."
## [654] "Internal Consistency: Findings showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 for internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of the three subscales (Speech, Spatial and Qualities) and all values were above the criterion of 0.7 for clinical acceptability (Speech; 0.93, Spatial; 0.91 and Qualities; 0.79). Split-Half Reliability: Findings showed a Gutmann split-half correlation of 0.93 with a coefficient alpha of 0.93 for part 1 (items 1 to 6) and 0.89 for part 2 (items 7 to 12). Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest in the sub-sample of hearing-impaired individuals who were tested two times (n = 22) showed good agreement for SSQ12 overall scores between the first (M = 5.3, SD = 2.0) and second assessments (M = 5.0, SD = 2.4). There was a significant Spearman’s correlation between the two scores (rs = 0.66, p<0.001) and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.79 (95% CI 0.50–0.91; fair to excellent)."
## [655] "Internal Consistency: Among sample 1, the 4-item RSES, the Cronbach’s α= 0.76. For the initial assessment, Cronbach’s α for the RSES-4 was 0.77. Cronbach’s α for the 4-item RSES 0.78. Test-Retest Reliability: With a follow-up of 10 weeks, the correlations between scores on the initial and follow-up assessments for the original Response to Stressful Experiences Scale (RSES; Johnson et al., 2011) and RSES-4 were 0.57 and 0.50, respectively (correlations significant at p < 0.01, n = 68"
## [656] "Internal consistency: The reliability estimate for the 13-item total scale was .97 (n = 753), indicating strong reliability. The reliability estimates for the subscales were .98 for the five-item SIE, .96 for the five-item SAR, and .97 for the three-item SM. These values also indicated high internal consistency reliability evidence for scores obtained from these three subscales (α > .70)."
## [657] "Internal Consistency: PsiQ-NL-35: Internal consistency for the full scale was excellent (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .944, ω = .945). Internal consistency for the modality subscales was acceptable to good, with Cronbach’s 𝛼 ranging from .756 (bodily sensation) to .865 (smell) and ω ranging from .757 (bodily sensation) to .865 (smell). PsiQ-NL-21: Internal consistency for the full scale was excellent, Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .913, ω = .914. Internal consistency for the modality subscales was moderate to acceptable, with Cronbach’s 𝛼 ranging from .691 (bodily sensation) to .790 (smell) and ω ranging from .693 (bodily sensation) to .802 (taste). Test-Retest Reliability: PsiQ-NL-35: The test-retest reliability of the full scale was good, r = .827. Test-retest reliability of the modality subscales was moderate to sufficient and ranged from r = .674 (sound) to r = .751 (smell). PsiQ-NL-21: Test-retest reliability (N = 414; 83%) for the full PsiQ-NL-21 was good, r = .819."
## [658] "Inter-Rater Reliability: The ICC based on the first coding session (n = 5 raters) indicated good agreement between coders (ICC = 0.77) on adherence ratings. Additionally, an ICC was calculated using the portion of the therapy session with the highest number of coders present (n = 20), talk turns 50–92, which indicated strong agreement between coders on overall adherence ratings across items (ICC = 0.81)."
## [659] "Internal Consistency: Internal consistency (𝛼) was overall satisfactory at 0.82, though the consistencies of the Visual and Auditory Emotion Identification subscales were lower. Interrater Reliability: The Emotion Vocabulary subscale, which includes open questions, had a very high interrater reliability of 0.99 between independent researchers. The interrater reliability was 0.66 for Emotion Expression, 0.85 for Emotion Regulation, and 0.71 for Emotion Understanding. Test-Retest Reliability: The 7-week retest reliability was r = 0.40 and r = 0.46 in a small subsample of n = 13 for the Emotion Vocabulary and Emotion Identification (visual) subscales, respectively. The other subscales and the total score resulted in larger correlations, ranging from r = 0.59 Emotion Identification (auditive), r = 0.71 for Emotion Understanding, r = 0.86 for Emotion Identification (situational), r = 0.81 for Emotion Regulation to r = 0.88 (Emotion Understanding)."
## [660] "Test-Retest Reliability: A pilot study was conducted (n = 30), in which test-retest reliability was estimated by contacting the participants twice and 2 weeks apart (average κ of items = 0.67)."samplesizes <- records_wide$Validity %>% str_match_all(regex("\\bn ?= ?(\\d+)", ignore_case = TRUE)) %>% map(~ as.numeric(.[,2]))
samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% table()## .
## 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
## 9 12 7 6 8 3 2 4 3 10 3 4 3 1 2 2
## 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33
## 1 1 1 7 5 2 3 3 1 7 3 4 9 2 6 3
## 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50
## 1 7 7 3 8 10 3 1 3 7 10 3 4 3 4 4
## 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 67 68
## 5 3 2 7 8 2 1 5 4 3 1 6 3 2 3 3
## 69 70 71 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
## 3 4 4 5 1 6 1 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 7 6
## 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
## 2 2 5 3 4 4 1 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 7 3
## 102 103 104 105 107 109 110 111 112 113 115 116 117 118 119 120
## 6 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 6 4 1 5 5 2 1 3
## 121 123 124 125 130 131 132 134 135 137 139 140 141 142 143 145
## 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 2 1 5
## 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 156 157 159 160 161 163 165
## 3 1 1 7 10 2 3 1 2 7 2 2 1 2 2 2
## 168 171 174 177 178 179 180 182 184 185 186 188 190 191 192 193
## 3 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2
## 194 195 197 198 200 201 203 204 205 206 207 209 211 212 213 214
## 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3
## 216 217 219 220 221 223 225 227 228 229 230 232 233 235 237 240
## 3 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
## 241 243 244 245 246 248 249 250 251 252 254 256 257 260 261 263
## 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 1
## 264 266 267 268 269 273 274 275 276 277 281 282 283 291 293 294
## 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
## 295 300 302 303 310 312 313 314 315 316 318 320 325 328 329 331
## 1 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
## 335 336 337 339 341 344 346 349 351 352 360 361 362 366 367 368
## 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
## 370 372 375 378 380 386 387 388 390 395 400 408 410 418 421 423
## 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
## 425 427 428 435 442 444 445 447 458 461 470 477 478 481 483 491
## 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 496 497 499 506 507 513 520 528 532 534 543 546 551 556 567 574
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 600 625 635 646 650 652 659 661 666 667 678 689 697 701 710 712
## 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 714 724 740 747 750 768 787 794 807 813 823 857 868 871 883 889
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 890 893 896 901 903 905 913 914 940 969 970 988 995 1000 1026 1260
## 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
## 1573 1656 1816 1848 2070 2310 2458 2470 3082 3259 4620 6137
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% median()## [1] 117records_wide$Validity[- (samplesizes %>% map_dbl(~ .[1]) %>% is.na() %>% which())]## [1] "Concurrent Validity: Study 1 --correlations among the AARRSI and its subscales, other instruments, and participant age and generation indicated significant positive correlations AARRSI total and subscale scores and the MSS (Smedley et al., 1993) total (n = 88; .47), MSS-Social Climate Stresses (.53), MSS-Interracial Stresses (.48), and MSS-Racism and Discrimination Stresses (.50). Concurrent Validity: Study 2 -- significant positive correlations were observed between the AARRSI total and subscale scores and SRE's (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996) Recent Racist Events (.53), Lifetime Racist Events (.55) , and Appraised Racist Events scores (.51); PRS's (McNeilly et al., 1996) Job (.35), Public (.37) and Statement (.39) scores, and between AARRSI's Socio-Historical Racism and CMI's (Terrell & Terrell, 1981) Politics and Law score (.32). Discriminant Validity: correlations calculated between the AARRSI and AVS (Kim et al., 1999) yielded a lack of significant correlations (p = <.00064)."
## [2] "Regarding discriminant validity, all factor loadings were appreciable, ranging from .59 to .89. The CARE’s manual (Glutting, Sheslow, & Adams, 2002) presents studies that examined external validity. One study evaluated diagnostic validity. It used receiver operator characteristic curves calculated between students with ADHD (n=58) and nonclassified contemporaries (n=1,022). The receiver operator characteristic analyses were all statistically significant (ps<.001). Therefore, areas under the curve (AUCs) were interpreted. Values ranged from .71 to .82 for the SRI and from .77 to .94 for the PRI."
## [3] "Criterion-related validity: The correlation between the C-HIPS's total scores and the Glasgow Outcome Scale category ratings was -0.61 (p < 0.001, N = 77). The correlation between the C-HIPS's total scores and the Mayo Portland Adaptability Inventory-3's total scores was 0.70 (p < 0.001, N = 73)."
## [4] "To determine concurrent validity, the CPSD was administered to 65 children and their teachers. CPDS scores were compared with indication for psychosocial treatment based on an in-depth clinical assessment by a psychiatrist and psychologist. Construct validity was assessed by testing the measurement equivalence of the CPDS in a community sample (N = 2,240) in Burundi. The CPDS identifies indication for treatment with an accurateness of .81 (sensitivity of .84; specificity of .60)."
## [5] "The correlation between CSAT-CM and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was r = .70 (n = 105) and the correlation between CSAT-CM and Home Care Satisfaction Measure: Case Management Service (HCSM-CM13) was r = .60 (n = 103)."
## [6] "Concurrent validity: In a third sample of college students (N = 506), concurrent validity was supported through moderate associations with 3 different stigma measures (i.e., public stigma toward counseling, r = .31; public stigma toward mental illness, r = .20; and self-stigma, r = .37)."
## [7] "Scores were intercorrelated and factor analyzed separately for the Jewish (N = 740) and the Arab (N = 750) samples. Factor patterns were similar in item composition, but differed in the percentage of variance accounted for by the factors. Specifically, Self-Praise, Life Satisfaction, and Work Outlook made up the leading cluster of factors in the Jewish sample; Self-Criticism, Religion, and Peer Relations were the analogous factors in the Arab sample."
## [8] "Discriminant validity: The CEQ factors used for prediction demonstrated highly significant discriminative power, x2(4, N = 256) = 201. The discriminant function concurrently predicted abusers versus experimental users vs nonusers with 64%-88% accuracy."
## [9] "Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 328) provided cross-validation of the 5-factor model as well as evidence for validity of the scale. The validity evidence was similar across racial groups and for males and females. Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, and Detachment were positively associated with active coping, self-blame, substance use, and behavioral disengagement, respectively, providing further support for validity of the CDS. Incremental validity evidence was obtained by results showing that the CDS explained variance in outcome variables (i.e., depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and ethnic identity) that could not be explained by general coping strategies."
## [10] "Factorial Validity: The completely standardized parameter estimates for the sample (n=3,633) display an overall good model fit, Chi-squared(1439)=12,555.58, p<.0001, CFI-.964, RMSEA=.051, SRMR-.048."
## [11] "For the model that included the final 10 items, in addition to reporting the chi-square statistic (and associated p value), the model fit was evaluated using an absolute fit index, the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMSR; Bentler, 1995), and an incremental fit index, the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). Fit indices suggested an excellent fit, chi-squared (34, N = 245) = 76.84, p < .01; SRMSR = .04; CFI = .97. Item loadings for the two factors ranged from .60 to .91. The interfactor correlation was .58 (SE = 0.05), and met Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) test for multifactorial discriminant validity."
## [12] "Test Validity: The average correlation between achievement items and the achievement locus of control scale was r -.31 (N = 241), these same achievement items correlated, on average, r -.10 with the affiliation scale. Affiliation items correlated, on average, r = .31 with the affiliation locus of control scale, but correlated only r = .09 with the achievement scale. These data support the discriminative validity of the items selected for each scale. The MMCS has been compared with the Rotter (1966) I-E Scale and correlations have been found to be positive, significant, and of variable magnitudes, rs ranging from .23 to .62 with the achievement and .37 to .55 with the affiliation locus of control scales."
## [13] "Dimensionality and measurement invariance of the short version (TDS-K) were examined in two offline surveys (N = 2,001 and 948) and two online surveys (N = 4,450 and 12,087). Multiple group confirmatory factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the measure and showed that measurement invariance held within each of the administration methods (offline vs. online survey), but only partial invariance held across these methods."
## [14] "Convergent/Divergent Validity: The IUS correlated most highly with the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; r = 0.60, p < 0.001); however, it was not significantly higher than the correlation between the IUS and the BDI-II and BAI. Results indicated significant partial correlations between the IUS and the PSWQ, when controlling for the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; N = 276, r = 0.41, p < 0.001), controlling for the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; N = 276, r = 0.38, p < 0.001), and controlling for both the BAI and BDI-II (N = 276, r = 0.30, p < 0.001). Criterion-related Validity: A Scheffe test for group comparisons indicated that participants who met the criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) by questionnaire (M = 70.51, SD = 12.56) scored significantly higher on the IUS than those who met only the somatic criteria (M = 57.12, SD = 17.83), the latter scoring significantly higher on the IUS than those who met none of the criteria for GAD (M = 46.61, SD = 15.84)."
## [15] "Convergent and discriminant validity were adequate. Construct validity was further demonstrated through factorial analyses of the combined samples (N = 246). Three separate factors emerged: cultural identity, language competence, and cultural competence."
## [16] "Content validity: Patients and providers believed most items of the QLQ–C30 were appropriate and worded well. External validity: To examine the external validity of the QLQ–C30, the authors examined whether the questionnaire reflects the same domains of QOL in two different populations, Caucasians and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Results of a confirmatory factor analyses showed that the RMSEA was .044 and the X2/df ratio was 1.69, each indicating good model fit. The AIC was equal to 603.3. These results provided evidence for the viability of the QLQ–C30 structure across groups. In testing the equality of parameters, it was found that the constrained model was not significantly degraded, X2diff(42, N = 362) = 43.9, p = .39, suggesting that there was equality across groups."
## [17] "Although the PSI was not designed to be a psychometric test, questions of reliability and validity nonetheless apply. Initial test-retest reliability checks on a small homogeneous population (N=20-25) yielded correlation coefficients of great than +.85 on each of the four scales. Larger studies with heterogeneous populations need to be conducted by independent researchers."
## [18] "Although the SSI was not designed to be a psychometric test, questions of reliability and validity nonetheless apply. Initial test-retest reliability checks on a small homogeneous population (N=20-25) yielded correlation coefficients of great than +.85 on each of the four scales. Larger studies with heterogeneous populations need to be conducted by independent researchers."
## [19] "Criterion Validity: Known-groups validity was demonstrated because the A-DES was able to distinguish dissociative-disordered adolescents from a “normal” sample and from a patient sample with a variety of diagnoses, with the mean of the “dissociative disorder” group significantly higher than those of the five other groups, although not higher for the “psychotic disorder” group. Also, adolescents were grouped into four general trauma groups: no known abuse (n = 47) , physical abuse alone, sexual abuse alone, and both physical and sexual abuse (n = 54 for these three). The A-DES means significantly differed by abuse status (they were highest for the physical and sexual abuse group). In addition, all four subscales were able to differentiate the normal from the dissociative disordered group."
## [20] "The Agoraphobic Cognitions Questionnaire (ACQ) and the Body Sensations Questionnaire (BSQ), two aspects of fear of fear, were as predicted, moderately correlated (r = .34, n = 95, Sample 1; r = .67, n = 50, Sample 2)."
## [21] "Dislike and Willpower were correlated (r = .43, n = 244, p < .001); believing weight is due to willpower and denigrating fat people go hand in hand. Fear of Fat was uncorrelated with Dislike (r = .01, ns). This suggests that self-relevant concerns about fatness are not a major aspect of disliking fat people. Fear of Fat was not correlated with Willpower (r = .01, n = 250, ns)."
## [22] "Construct concurrent validation, Free Choice Naming of the 26 PFs; N= 600, ages 5 to 83. Convergent validity with all parallel Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS-X, Watson & Clark,1991). Significant correlations with the DASS21 Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Also tested with small groups of non-English speaking groups (Spanish, Ni Vanuatu, Australian Aboriginals)."
## [23] "The CAT significantly correlated with related constructs, including dissociation, depression, stressful life events, and impairment in interpersonal relationships. Validity is also attested to by research participants with multiple personality (n = 17) achieving extremely high scores."
## [24] "In assessing the validity of the CWVI, a small population of children in family violence shelters (N = 28) was compared to a matched control group. Children exposed to family violence had significantly more inappropriate responses and attitudes to anger and less knowledge about safety skills. There were no significant differences on the responsibility for violence subscale."
## [25] "Factorial analysis; intercorrelations with OPQ32i (instrument measuring occupational personality traits; N=97); intercorrelations with ratings from 360° process (N=179); acceptance rating of instrument by applicants and intercorrelations with ratings from employment interview (N=140); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [26] "Factorial analysis; intercorrelations between views and instrument measuring corporate culture of an organisation (N=197); intercorrelations with questionnaire measuring occupational competencies (N=386); job satisfaction ratings (N=477); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects"
## [27] "Intercorrelations with instruments measuring numerical (N=314) and verbal abilities (N=339) and English language proficiency (N=314); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [28] "Intercorrelations with tests measuring logical reasoning (N=1,138), the ability to discover rules (N=1,118), visual thinking (N=1,067), and calculating capacity (N=1,164); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [29] "Intercorrelations with a questionnaire measuring occupational competencies (N=103) and with tests measuring numerical (N=102) and verbal (N=91) abilities as well as the ability to concentrate (N=151); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [30] "Intercorrelations with tests measuring inductive logical reasoning (N=118), the ability to concentrate (N=121), basic numeracy (N=205), deductive logical reasoning (N=102), multi-tasking (N=214), short term memory (N=214); intercorrelations with ratings from 360° process (N=117); intercorrelations with assessment center data; various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [31] "Intercorrelations with tests measuring inductive logical reasoning (N=103), the ability to concentrate (N=113), basic numeracy (N=191), deductive logical reasoning (N=91), multi-tasking ability (N=198), short term memory (N=109); intercorrelations with ratings from 360° process (N=117); intercorrelations with assessment center data; various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [32] "Intercorrelations with tests measuring numerical (N=116) and verbal abilities (N=109) and the ability to concentrate (N=142); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [33] "Intercorrelations with tests measuring short term memory (N=901), calculating capacity (N=913), the ability to concentrate (N=883), logical thinking (N=889), English language proficiency (N=914), multi-tasking ability (N=823), visual thinking (N=893), understanding of instructions (N=890), hand-eye coordination (N=903); intercorrelations with questionnaire assessing multiple intelligences, vocational interests, learning styles, and learning behavior (N=893); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [34] "Intercorrelations with a questionnaire measuring occupational competencies (N=216) and with tests measuring numerical (N=214) and verbal reasoning (N=198), logical reasoning (N=223), the ability to concentrate (N=491), short term memory (N=362), deductive logical reasoning (N=243), basic numeracy (N=216); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [35] "Intercorrelations with a questionnaire measuring occupational competencies (N=107) and data from a 360° feedback process (N=81); intercorrelations with tests measuring numerical (N=97) and verbal abilities (N=93), logical reasoning (N=82), the ability to concentrate (N=101), short term memory (N=116), deductive logical reasoning (N=88); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [36] "Intercorrelations between subscales and self-ratings (N=26,010); various studies on criterion-related validity from real-life hiring and selection projects."
## [37] "Content validity: The authors conducted a small (N= 56) study examining content validity in which children were asked to write out the meaning of each picture to investigate the “stimulus pull.” Two scorers (with interrater reliability of r = .84) then scored each scale as to whether the responses matched the scale dimension. Z values were calculated in order to determine hit rate; values ranged from Z = .30 to .72. Values from third graders (N = 26) were lower than seventh graders (N = 30), indicating that children’s social comprehension will increase with age."
## [38] "Convergent validity: The IDAF-4C compared positively to Corah’s (1969; Corah, Gale, & Illig, 1978) Dental Anxiety Scale (r = .84, p < .001) and a single-item measure of dental fear (r = .57, p < .001). Predictive validity: The IDAF-4C predicted future dental visiting and visit perceptions. People who had visited a dentist in the 4-month period between baseline and follow-up (n = 191, M = 1.55, SD = .82) had significantly lower IDAF-4C scores than did people who had not visited a dentist (n = 303, M = 1.91, SD = 1.05), F(1, 492) = 16.50, p < .001. Of those people who had visited a dentist at 4-month follow-up, there was a statistically significant correlation between baseline dental fear and the perception of the visit as negative (r = .37, p < .001)."
## [39] "Life Attitude Profile correlations to the following validity scales are as follows: Dean's Alientation Scale .02 (N=44), Reid-Ware Internal-External Locus of Control Scale -.31 (N=44), Lodzinski's Academic Goals Inventory -.04 (N=44), Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory .16 and .09 for Time Competence and Future Orientation, respectively (N=35), and Crowne-Marlow Social Desirability Scale .09 (N=42)."
## [40] "In a Wurtele et al. (1989) study, parents’ ratings (N = 42) of fear levels were not significantly related to children’s fear ratings. Parents tended to underestimate their children’s fears, and thus the validity of this section of the PPQ is questionable. In Wurtele (1990), results on the PPQ indicated no differences in parents’ ratings of behavior associated with their child’s program involvement from pre- to posttreatment, which again raises doubts about the usefulness of the PPQ."
## [41] "Convergent validity: In a separate validation investigation (Tarn, Chan, & Wong, 1994), the PSI was compared with other global measures of stress in a sample of Chinese mothers in Hong Kong (N = 248). Significant correlations with the General Health Questionnaire (Shek, 1987), the Langer Stress Scale (Langer, 1962), and the Global Assessment of Recent Stress (Linn, 1985) provide good evidence for convergent validity. Criterion-related validity: Criterion-related validity was demonstrated by comparisons of clinical status groups with control groups. Significantly different PSI scores were demonstrated between the groups. In recent study of parents (N = 216) of Head Start children, the short form of the PSI indicated a correlation between the total score with the parenting scale (Arnold et al., 1993)."
## [42] "Concurrent Validity: All three subscales of the SRE correlated well with a variety of symptoms, and particularly with stress-related, somatic symptoms and with feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem (measured by the Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale) as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. To assess the relationship between cigarette smoking and racist events, the authors conducted a MANOVA that compared the smokers and nonsmokers in the sample based on their scores on the SRE, with three dependent variables: racist events recent, lifetime, and appraisal. The MANOVA was significant (Hotelling's T2 = .089, F[3, 133] = 3.96, p = .01), which indicated that smokers (n = 24) and nonsmokers (n = 113) differed in their scores on the SRE."
## [43] "In a study of 1,196 research participants divided by externally documented official case records into four groups, including a physical abuse group (n = 110), a neglect group (n = 520), sexual abuse group (n = 96), and a nonabused (n = 543) control group. Five out of six of the individual items on the SRCAP and the overall SRCAP score discriminated significantly among the groups, providing evidence of criterion-related validity. Criterion validity was also supported in that the SRCAP was found to be a significant predictor of self-reported violence, an outcome found in officially reported physical abuse cases."
## [44] "For validity analysis, SCAN diagnoses were recoded into four dichotomous yes/no variables indicating harmful use/abuse or dependence according to ICD-10 or DSM-4. Almost all the respondents had a diagnosis of drug dependence according to ICD-10 (95%, n = 146) and according to DSM-4 (94%, n = 145). These diagnoses concerned one to six drug categories. A harmful use diagnosis for at least one drug according to ICD-10 was obtained for 16% (n = 24) of the respondents, while a diagnosis of substance abuse according to DSM-4 was obtained for 42% (n = 64) of the respondents."
## [45] "Construct validity was assessed by comparing TAQ scores to responses on a forced-choice question regarding parents' comfort with treatment. Parents answered the question \"Which of the two treatments described here would you feel more comfortable pursuing?\" by choosing one of three responses (BT [behavior therapy alone], MED [medication alone], or NT [no treatment]). Two independent samples t tests were performed. TAQ Medication Acceptability ratings were significantly higher for families that endorsed MED (n = 12; M = 37.08, SD = 5.26) than those that did not (n = 38; M = 21.71, SD = 10.13), t(36.79) = -6.87. Similarly, mean parent ratings of Behavior Therapy Acceptability on the TAQ were higher for those that endorsed BT (n = 39; M = 39.54, SD = 7.81) than for those that did not (n = 11; M = 33.45, SD = 6.47), t(48) = -2.36. Overall, these results suggest that ratings of treatment acceptability on the TAQ generally are consistent with parents' stated preferences."
## [46] "Construct validity: The relationships between performance on BIP and performance on three other self-report personality tests (16PF, NEO FFI and EPI) are presented in the manual. Criterion related: Validity data has been collected against observer ratings, income (corrected for age), hierarchical position (corrected for age), subjective estimation of career success and job satisfaction. Social Validity: Systematic feedback on users experience of completing the BIP has been collected (N=1573). Correlations with Impression Management and Acquiescence are also presented in the manual. Equivalence with other language editions was ensured through the carrying out of focus groups, cognitive interviews etc in the course of the UK standardisation."
## [47] "A facet analysis was conducted on each sub-scale separately in order to provide proof of the validity of its contents. The results indicated that the items in the six sub-scales are representative of their respective content domain and that each item has a satisfactory degree of relevance to the construct being measured. Normative information for the GMDS-ER is based on a national standardisation sample representative of children between their second and eighth year of age in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and Eire (Republic of Ireland). The sample (N=1026) was stratified according to geographic region and was proportionate to the population ratios obtained in 1997 for the UK and Eire by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Central Statistics Office (CSO) for children between their second and eighth year in age..."
## [48] "Relationship between ‘Implicitly’ and an 84 item self-report questionnaire comprising 28 overtly prejudiced beliefs and behaviours, 28 statements from the modern racism research (where underlying prejudices are expressed in a way that avoids sanction) and 28 distracter items. 8 Factors emerged from the self-report questionnaire data. Factor 1 was ‘Overtly prejudiced beliefs and behaviour’. Multiple regression was used to discover which of a number of algorithms underlying Implicitly scores was most predictive of Factor 1. Bi-variate mean correlation between ‘Implicitly’ raw scores and Factor 1 raw scores was calculated to be .45 across two UK population samples (N=318 and N=747). Score on ‘Implicitly’ is independent of general speed (across tasks) or error proneness. Studies have shown no impact of IQ. (Gray et al 2003). Some age effects evident. Older test-takers (>55) showed more prejudicial attitudes against ethnic groups than younger test-takers (<25)..."
## [49] "Convergent and Discriminant validity: NSPS total scores for Groups 1 and 2 demonstrated significantly higher zero-order correlations with measures of social anxiety (r = .63-.73) than with measures of theoretically distinct constructs such as OCD (r = .40-.47) (p-values < .01; n = 225 and 316)."
## [50] "Convergent validity: SHI scores were highly correlated with scores on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (r = .76, N = 221). Also, scores on the Borderline Personality Disorder Scale of the Personality Diagnosis Questionnaire-Revised and the SHI were highly related (r = .73, p < .01 )."
## [51] "Convergent Validity: In a sample of patients with major depressive disorder, CPFQ scores were significantly correlated with both measures of sleepiness and fatigue: the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (r = 0.32; n = 149; p < 0.001) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (r = 0.64; n = 150; p < 0.001)."
## [52] "Discriminant Validity: Analyses revealed that Children's Social Desirability Scale (n=123, r=.08, p=.41) and race (n=2310, O2=.01, p=.10) were not correlated with AEBLS-S scores. A significant relationship was found between AEBLS-S scores and gender (n=2458, r=.21, p=.01). A weak, but significant negative correlation was found between AEBLS-S scores and substance abuse (r= -.26; p< .001), and a significant negative correlation was also found between AEBLS-S and dispositional leisure boredom (r= -.33; p< .001)."
## [53] "External validity: Responsibility Goal predicted perceived competition, indicating a positive and significant correlation (b = .43), while the Relationship Goal did not in a meaningful way. The indices obtained were: x² (117, N = 813) = 396.46, p = .00; x↓3/g.l. = 3.38; CFI = .93; NFI = .90; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .04, which indicates that the data conform to the proposed model."
## [54] "Predictive validity: The DAS-4 was effective in predicting couple dissolution. For women, the following results were obtained: Χ2(1, N = 135) = 22.19, p < .01, OR = .79, CI = .713, .884. As for men, the following results were obtained: Χ2(1, N = 135) = 22.65, p < .01, OR = .79, CI = .705, .876."
## [55] "Construct validity: The correlation between the indecisiveness scale and the self-esteem scale was .41 (n = 156, p < .01), indicating that low feelings of self-esteem go together with indecisiveness. As expected, the correlation between career indecision and self-esteem is lower, namely .18 (n = 156, p < .05). The difference between the two correlations is significant, t (153) = 2.70, p < .01."
## [56] "Predictive validity: A discriminant function analysis (DFA) correctly classified 33 out of 38 children with autism/PDD, and only misclassified 8 of the 1,196 nonautistic children (false positives), indicating that the M-CHAT is successful at indicating children who require further follow-up. Of the nonautistic children misclassified as autistic, 5 were children who received evaluations and received diagnoses other than autism/PDD, and 3 were children who received phone follow-up. The 5 children with autism/ PDD who were misclassified as nonautistic were children whose parents initially underreported symptoms, and the child’s early intervention provider or pediatrician flagged the checklist for further investigation (n = 3), or children with checklist scores not very far above the cutoff (n = 2). Based on the DFA classification, the M-CHAT has a sensitivity of .87, specificity of .99, positive predictive power of .80, and negative predictive power of .99."
## [57] "Criterion validity: Validity assessments show good support for the WSWS. The WSWS subscales can discriminate appropriately between symptom types and also reveal the positive relationship between negative affect and craving. In addition, the WSWS significantly predicted smoking outcomes [X2(7, N = 163) = 15.19, p = .034]."
## [58] "Concurrent validity: The MSDS showed substantial correlations with two measures of therapeutic adequacy, supporting concurrent validity. The correlations between the typescript (n = 116), Set 1 (n = 85), and Set 2 (n = 85) of the MSDS and the Discrimination Rating Scale were .60, .50, and .61, respectively. Comparable correlations with the Affective Recognition Scale were .70, .50, and .51, respectively."
## [59] "Convergent validity: Intercorrelations of doctoral practicum students' ratings of supervisors on the three SSI scales with the three composite variables from Stenack and Dye's (1982) teacher, counselor,, and consultant items (N = 90) showed moderate to high positive relationships (ps < .001), with one exception. The attractive scale correlated highly with the counselor and consultant items (rs ≥ .65) but to a lesser extent with the teacher items (r = .42). The interpersonally sensitive scale correlated highly with all three variables (rs ≥ .60). The task oriented scale correlated most strongly with the teacher variable (r = .61) and least with the counselor variable (r = .21). These results demonstrate convergent validity because of the strong relationships between the empirically derived SSI scales and a measure of supervisory role behavior."
## [60] "Criterion validity: All 44 situations of the Taxonomy of Problematic Social Situations for Children successfully distinguished a socially rejected group of children from an average, adaptive group. A significant multivariate main effect of status, F(6, 56) = 34.80, p < .001, and significant univariate effects (all ps < .001) indicated that teachers consistently rated the situations as being more problematic for rejected than for adaptive children. The mean item scores across the 44 items were 3.18 for the rejected group and 1.70 for the adaptive group. A discriminant function analysis yielded a highly significant prediction of a child's social status from the six factor scores, Wilks's lambda = .26, X2(6, N = 84) = 90.59, p < .001."
## [61] "Construct validity: Results showed that the Pearson correlation between obsessive and harmonious passion was .28 (n = 312), thus underscoring that both subscales are relatively independent from each other. With respect to obsessive passion, there was a significant positive association with the amount of money gambled in general (partial r = .51, p < .001), being a heavy gambler (partial r = .49, p < .001), longevity of gambling (partial r = .19, p < .001), and the number of gambling games involved in (partial r = .14, p < .05). Harmonious passion was not significantly associated with any of those measures. Obsessive passion and harmonious passion were both positively associated with game frequency (partial r = .31, p < .001 and partial r = .17, p < .01 for obsessive and harmonious passion, respectively) and game as part of the self (partial r = .46, p < .001 and partial r = .15, p < .01 for obsessive and harmonious passion, respectively)."
## [62] "Divergent and Concurrent Validity: The study (N = 341) supports the validity of the 29-item set of indicators of the IOA, which discriminates abuse cases (84.4% of the time) from nonabuse cases (99.2% of the time)."
## [63] "Client Group Classification (Rehabilitation , Psychiatric, or Medical) at Time of Evaluation (N = 150); Correct Classification: 90.67% (Wilks’ Ω = 0.0011, p < .000) Hospitalization Status (Not Hospitalized, Rehabilitation, Died, Medical Psychiatric, or Unknown) 6 Months Post Evaluation; Correct Classification: 90.60% (Wilkes’ Ω = 0.12, p < .001)."
## [64] "Convergent/Discriminant Validity: Regarding convergent and discriminant validity, the DIS showed stronger correlations with the DRES (r = .92) and Restraint Scale (r = .82; Herman & Polivy, 1980), than with the Negative Affect Scale from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X; r = .42; Watson & Clark, 1992) and Body Dissatisfaction Scale (r = .48; Stice & Shaw, 1994). Predictive Validity: A second pilot study (N = 59) found that the DIS predicted a behaviorally based measure of eating: fat-gram consumption (r = -.32)."
## [65] "Using a subsample of the Second Sheffield Psychotherapy Project (SPP2) data set, which comprised only project clients who completed psychotherapy treatment (N = 117; see Shapiro et al., 1994, for details), pre- and post-treatment scores on the full and short versions were compared. The pre-therapy scores for the full IIP and IIP-32 were 1.68 (SD = .45) and 1.62 (SD = .45) respectively, while at post-therapy assessment they were 1.23 (SD = .57) and 1.21 (SD = .56) respectively. Overall, these changes indicate effect sizes of 1.00 for the IIP-127 and 0.91 for the IIP-32. The changes at the level of the eight scales showed significant improvement (p < .001 on all tests) on all short-form scales as did the scales of the long version except, in both cases, for the scale T. Open (p < .2). The correlations between the full liP and the IIP-32 at pre- and post-treatment administrations were . 94 and . 96 respectively."
## [66] "Global PSQI scores differed significantly between subject groups (healthy subjects, n =52, depressed patients, and sleep-disorder patients). Validity of the PSQI was further confirmed by comparing PSQI estimates of sleep variables with those obtained by polysomnography."
## [67] "Construct Validity: The internal-consistency estimates given above (weighted mean = .832) suggest that the items on the CPI-EMD scale are measuring a relatively coherent (though factorially complex) construct. Convergent Validity: The mean effect-size estimate for condition of 1.39 (and the corresponding condition versus CPI-EMD scale correlation of .57) indicates that this scale is indexing a behavioral variable—the tendency to distort personality item responses in an employment context. Next, the correlation between the CPI-EMD and CPI-Fake Good measures (with the Study 1 sample in the E condition) was .843 (n = 250). Finally, the correlation between CPI-EMD and CPI-Based Counterproductivity (CPI-Cp) scores (both from E-condition data)was –.587 (n = 250, p < .0001 directional; cf. the earlier EMD criterion vs. CPI-Cp scale r of –.204)."
## [68] "Convergent Validity: Convergent validity of the DDI was supported by expected gender differences. In particular, women reported more of a tendency to disclose distress (M = 42.21, SD = 9.16, n = 156) than men (M = 36.33, SD = 8.98, n = 111), t(265) = 5.21, p < .001. In addition, the DDI correlated positively and strongly with measures of self-disclosure, social support, and extraversion; DDI scores were also positively (although more modestly) related to positive affect. Also as predicted, DDI scores were negatively related to measures of self-concealment and, to a lesser extent, to depressive symptoms. Contrary to expectations, the DDI failed to correlate with anxiety symptoms. Discriminant Validity: Discriminant validity of DDI scores was established in that the DDI correlated weakly with neuroticism and social desirability; the correlation between the DDI and negative affectivity was higher than expected but still weak in magnitude."
## [69] "Discriminant Validity: Each RUSHS subscale and total scale was evaluated for its ability to discriminate between students with low (n = 82) and high (n = 273) stress (as defined above). The independent t tests indicated that compared to students with low stress, students with high stress reported statistically significantly greater frequency and severity of hassles on all of the scales associated with the RUSHS (range of p values = .01-.0001). In particular, highly stressed students reported a statistically significantly higher frequency and severity of hassles in the areas of Time Pressures, Financial Constraints, Friendships, Physical Appearance, and Total Hassles (p < .0001). The effect sizes for these statistically significant differences were medium to large according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria (average d = .84, SD = .47)."
## [70] "Construct validity: with S-GRIT (n=109), a similar test directed at graduates, managers & technical professionals - r = 0.67; GRIT 3 (previous version) with Alice Heim AH6 Test r = 0.80. Criterion-related validity: with line-manager ratings of decision making capability (n=19), r = 0.50, p<0.05."
## [71] "Construct validity: with GRIT (n=109), a similar test directed at senior managers, executives & senior technical professionals - r = 0.67; with 16PF Factor B, \"Reasoning\" (N=212) - r = 0.59; with SHL's ASO verbal (N=61), r=0.65 and ASO numerical, r = 0.48). Criterion-related validity: with annual performance review data, r = 0.32. More information available in manual."
## [72] "Construct validity: with 16PF Factor B, \"Reasoning\" (N=151) - r = 0.66; Criterion-related validity: with assessment centre ratings of Intellectual Capacity & Decision making - r = 0.21 (n=101); with assessment centre ratings of Planning & Organising - r = 0.23 (n=101); with development centre ratings of problem solving & decisiveness - r=0.32 (n=105)."
## [73] "Construct validity: Comparisons with 16PF (n = 54) Theoretical vs 16PF Factor F (liveliness) - r = -.55; Competitive & Individual vs 16PF Factor O (apprehension) - r = -0.25; Self-critical vs 16PF Factor O (apprehension) - r = 0.60; Task Focus vs 16PF Factor E (Dominance) - r = 0.38; Guarded vs 16PF Factor N (Privateness) - r = 0.62. Criterion-related validity: Correlations with assessment centre ratings (N=57) r = 0.27 up to 0.33 for all scales; Correlations with Sales performance (N = 22) - r = 0.44 for Self-critical."
## [74] "Construct validity: with Watson-Glaser Critical Reasoning Test (n=61) - r = 0.0.35; Criterion-related validity: with development centre ratings of communication (n = 84), r = 0.30, p<0.01; with company-rated performance measure of communication (n=39), r = 0.36, p<0.05; with sales ability (n=36) r = 0.35."
## [75] "Criterion-related validity: Individual scales correlate with actual sales volume, r = up to 0.38; with Manager ratings of performance, r = up to 0.40 (n = 38). Global scales correlate with ratings of performance r = up to 0.43."
## [76] "The brief CBI was internally validated against a measure similar to the original open-ended format using a sample of university students. Participants were to imagine being nominated for a creative undergraduate award and to list their five most creative accomplishments in support of this. Responses were typed and judged by 4–6 raters (alpha = .86 for the four judges in year 1; alpha = .91 for the six judges in year 4). With N = 400, the average “dossier” rating correlated r = .40, p < .001, with the brief CBI."
## [77] "Predictive validity of the CAQ was established against artist ratings of a creative product, a collage (r = .59, p < .0001, n = 39). Study 3 (n = 86), convergent validity was established with other measures of creative potential, including divergent thinking tests (r = .47, p < .0001), the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979; r = .33, p = .004), Intellect (Goldberg, 1992; r = .51, p < .0001), and Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992; r = .33, p = .002); discriminant validity was established between the CAQ and both IQ and self-serving bias. A three-factor solution identified Expressive, Scientific, and Performance factors of creative achievement. A two-factor solution identified an Arts factor and a Science factor."
## [78] "Convergent Validity: Internalization was correlated with an implicit measure of self-concepts and moral traits (r = .33, p < .001; N = 124), but the implicit measure was not correlated with Symbolization (r = .11, p < .20; N = 124). These results provide some evidence for convergent validity. Discriminant Validity: Both dimensions of moral identity showed weak or nonsignificant relationships to presumably unrelated constructs. The one exception is that the Symbolization dimension was modestly correlated to self-esteem. Predictive Validity: The results showed that both Internalization (M = 4.0, SD = 0.7, r = .39, p < .001) and Symbolization (M = 3.0, SD = 0.7, r = .28, p < .001) were significantly correlated with external judges’ ratings of the moral content of self-concept descriptions."
## [79] "Criterion Validity: The SES-T total score correlated r = .69 (n = 678) with the Self-Efficacy Teacher Report Scale total score, and r = .80 (n = 85) with the Self-Esteem Rating Scale for Children total score, indicating acceptable criterion-related validity. Factorial Validity: The one-factor extraction accounted for 52.4% of the variance among item responses and was the most parsimonious and interpretable result. Factor structure coefficients for the 28 items ranged from .05 to .90, with only Item 24 (“My student learns new things easily”) not meeting the .30 salience criterion. The joint examination of the goodness of fit statistics for the SES-T data in this case indicated a cautious acceptance of fit for the unidimensional model."
## [80] "External Validity: All four scales of the CM3 resulted in statistically significant, albeit modest, positive correlations with mastery goals, self-efficacy, and self-regulation at the p < .01 level (one-tailed). Predictive Validity: Strong relationships were found between scores on the Creative Problem Solving scale and performance on the Math subtest of the SAT9 (r = .33, p < .001), and between scores on the Cognitive Integrity scale and performance on the Reading subtest of the SAT9 (r = .43, p < .001). Correlations of similar magnitude were found between the CM3scales and GPAin Study 2, with the strongest relationship resulting between GPA and scores on the Mental Focus scale. Discriminant Validity: No relation was found between the Marlowe-Crowne and the scales of the CM3. The results were the following: Learning Orientation (r = –.03, n = 661), Creative Problem Solving (r = –.03, n = 652), Mental Focus (r = –.06, n = 574), and Cognitive Integrity (r = .00, n = 646)."
## [81] "Criterion Validity: Approach and problem-focused avoidance were both positively related to pain controllability (r = 0.57; r = 0.39, respectively) and coping effectiveness (r = 0.37, r = 0.37, respectively). Emotion-focused avoidance was negatively related to pain controllability (r = −0.30) and coping effectiveness (r = −0.52). Problem-focused avoidance was negatively related to pain intensity (r = −0.19) and distress (r = −0.33) and emotion-focused avoidance was positively related to pain intensity (r = 0.21) and distress (r = 0.57). Approach coping was not significantly related to pain intensity or distress. Among the high school students (n = 41–42), lower levels of problem-focused avoidance and higher levels of emotion-focused avoidance were related to higher levels of functional disability. Approach coping was not significantly related to functional disability. Higher levels of approach and problem-focused avoidance coping were related to higher tender point thresholds."
## [82] "Concurrent Validity: The empathy scale was built to predict Q-sort-derived empathy ratings. In the samples used in its development (N = 211), the average correlation between the scale and empathy ratings was .62; in an independent sample of medical school applicants (N = 70), this figure was .39."
## [83] "Standardization: Clarity of preference against UK sample (n = 1260)."
## [84] "The development of the SSD was based on existing scales, DSM-IV, ICD-10, and judgments of independent experts on the items and subscales of the SSD. This basis contributes towards its content validity, since it suggests that the SSD measures what it was supposed to measure. Concurrent validity was confirmed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, which demonstrated a statistically highly signi\u008ecant variation in SSD and subscale scores across diagnostic groups (x2(4) = 57.83, p = < .01 for the total SSD score). Concurrent validity was also demonstrated in the comparison between those with and those without a dissociative disorder, for which the independent samples t-test was statistically highly significant (t(10.04) = -5.30; p < .001). Internal Criterion Validity: Among the item–subscale correlations, none of the Pearson coefficients was ≤ .4 (N = 130). The subscale–total correlations among the subgroups were all significant. Convergent and Discriminant Validity were also supported."
## [85] "Construct Validity: A small but statistically significant relationship was found between the number of community activities engaged in and empowerment (r = .15, N = 261, p = .02). A small but statistically significant inverse correlation was found between use of traditional mental health services and empowerment (r = -.14, N = 256, p = .02). In addition, positive correlations were found between empowerment and quality of life, social support, and self-esteem. Known-Groups Validity: The Empowerment Scale was administered to 56 hospitalized patients and 200 college students. The difference in the two groups' scores lent credence to the scale’s ability to discriminate among groups of respondents whose feelings of empowerment are different from those of participants in self-help programs."
## [86] "Convergent & Discriminant validity: The Anger Discomfort Scale (ADS) showed no significant relationship to SAT combined scores (n = 137, r = .06), or social desirability (n = 98, r = -.12). The ADS correlated positively with anger-out (n = 150, r = .20, p < .01), anger-in (n = 150, r = .32, p < .001), and general anger expression (n = 150, r = .34, p < .001), while correlating negatively with anger control (n = 150, r = -.16, p < .05). The ADS demonstrated a substantial positive relationship with trait anxiety (n = 75, r = .51, p < .001). The correlations between the ADS and familial emotional suppression (n = 75, r = .18) and discomfort with others' anger expression n = 75, r = .12) were both nonsignificant. Factorial validity: Four factors were extracted having eigenvalues of 4.35, 1.72, 1.38, and 1.28 respectively"
## [87] "Validity was proven by determining the correlation of the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS; Lowenthal, 1964) and the IADL with the following measures: Physical Classification (PC; Waldman & Fryman, 1964), Mental Status Questionnaire (MSQ; Kahn et al., 1960), and the Behavior and Adjustment rating scales (BA; Waldman & Fryman, 1964, revised by Brody & Lawton). All correlations were significant at the .01 level except for the BA-IADL (N = 44) correlation, which just misses the .01 level."
## [88] "The Evaluation of Teaching Competencies is a unidimensional measure that correlated strongly with an instructor-related composite of the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ, r = .72), but not to a SEEQ composite related to instructor assigned work (r = .04, N = 195)."
## [89] "Construct Validity: The LGBTCI scores were correlated with total scores on the MSQ-SF (Weiss et al., 1977), resulting in a correlation of .58 (n = 84; p < .001). The LGBTCI scores correlated –.52 (n = 85; p < .001) with the LGB Workplace Discrimination Survey (Croteau et al., 1998). Correlations in this range indicate adequate evidence of construct validity. Correlations should be “moderately high, but not too high” (Anastasi, 1982, p. 145). These moderate correlations indicate that the construct measured (workplace climate) was related to but not synonymous with the construct of work satisfaction and with self-reports of workplace discrimination."
## [90] "In study 1, confirmatory factor analysis results supported a unidimensional model for the Modern Homonegativity Scale -- Gay, S-B Chi-Square (52, N=180)=97.04, p<.001, *CFI=.95, RMSEA=.07, SRMR=.05. Given the excellent fit between the hypothesized model and the data, no parameter estimates were included in this model. CFA results also supported a unidimensional model for the MHS-Lesbian, S-B Chi-Square (53, N=182)=61.61, p<.05, *CFI=.98, RMSEA=.05, SRMR=.04. The proposed conceptual distinction between modern homonegativity and the old-fashioned homonegativity, as well as \"modern\" homophobia was confirmed. The excellent fit of the separate two-factor CFA models, one using MHS-G and ATG scale items and one using MHS-L and ATL scale items, reveals that the MHS and ATLG measure two, distinct forms of homonegativity. This distinction is a vital strand of evidence in support of the MHS' construct validity. These results were replicated in Study 2 with American participants."
## [91] "Validity: The rCSM showed good correlations with self-reported sleep–wake rhythm, midpoint of sleep, personality (conscientiousness). Correlations between the German version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ; Griefahn et al., 2001) and the rCSM were found to be a bit lower (r= 0.846; p < 0.001, N= 79) compared to the correlation of the full scale with the MEQ (r = 0.89; see Randler 2008a) but it was considered acceptable."
## [92] "Construct Validity: Female students' BDI scores (M = 7, SD = 5) correlated significantly (r = .52, p < .0001) with their STSS scores (M = 78, SD = 15), the P&HSII group BDI scores (M = 12, SD = 8) correlated (r = .51, p < .0001) with their STSS scores (M = 82, SD = 19), and the battered women's BDI scores (M = 21, SD = 11) correlated significantly (r = .50, p < .0001) with their STSS scores (M = 100, SD = 26). The STSS varied significantly in the expected direction across the three female populations. Analysis of variance indicates significant differences among STSS means (students: n = 63, M = 78; P&HSII: n = 266, M = 82; battered women: n = 140, M = 100; F[2, 466] = 43.20, p < .0001) and among BDI means (students: n = 63, M = 7; P&HSII: n = 268, M = 12; battered women: n = 140, M = 21; F[2, 468] = 68.26, p < .0001)."
## [93] "None of the five situation factors was correlated as highly with each other (r = .30 to .55) as with total score (r = .65 to .84), indicating that factors were measuring distinct aspects of the global construct. Parental report of anger intensity (rated on a 10-point scale) was highly correlated with the rank ordering of punishment intensity (r = 234, p < .05) for a sample of 42 parents. Observations of mothers and their children in the waiting room for a small sample (n = 26) were conducted, and interactions were coded according to a system developed by the authors. Correlations between mothers’ IPPS scores and their observed behavior were calculated. High IPPS total scores were correlated with low warmth ratings (r = -.57, p < .01) , fewer nondirective attending statements ( r = -.46, p < .05), and more interferences with the child’s play (r = .44, p < .05)."
## [94] "The female prediction equations failed to generalize to a male sample (N = 100), with only 1 of the 20 MIQ subscale prediction equations being validated."
## [95] "Evidence for the construct validity of the old hardiness test is summarized in Kobasa et al., 1985. Principal components factor analyses (varimax rotation) revealed three factors of commitment, challenge, and control in samples of bus drivers (N = 787) and Army officers (N = 111), confirming the relevance of a three-facet model of hardiness."
## [96] "In cross-validation, factor coefficients based on one sample are tested against another sample in which both samples have been drawn from the same population. The second subsample in this study (n = 325) was used to replicate the findings for cross-validation purposes. A comparison indicated that correlations between factor pattern coefficients in the two subsamples were .68, .91, .82, and .85 for Factors I, II, III, and IV, respectively."
## [97] "Factor analytic evidence from an initial sample (n = 361) of college chemistry students shows the Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Instrument measures five constructs: working with chemicals, using equipment and procedures, collecting data, working with other students, and having adequate time. The modified scales also show moderate correlation (ranging from .23 to .71), and the five anxiety scale scores all show a negative correlation with the Relief scale that was inferred from the factor analysis results."
## [98] "Criterion Validity: Direct comparison of this questionnaire to a scale previously developed in the literature (BCHK) supported the utility of the new questionnaire for evaluation of knowledge after counseling. Compared to non-counseled groups (n = 45), women who had undergone genetic counseling (n = 28) scored significantly higher (P < 0.0001) on the BGKQ, but not on the other questionnaire, establishing the BGKQ’s criterion validity. Content Validity: The instrument’s content validity was high, as evidenced by high levels of independent interrater agreement (0.93) on items."
## [99] "Principal factor analysis of the Ways of Coping checklist data, calling for two factors and using a varimax rotation, also lent empirical support for the rationally derived scales: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Correlations between the P- and E-scales were .35 (N = 81), .52 (N = 63), and .44 (N = 83). The mean correla- tion was .44. Because both scales measure processes believed to be used together in nor- mal coping, a relationship between the two was expected. However, since the mean r2 was .19, there is enough variance not shared by the two scales to support their independent use"
## [100] "The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the measurement model fits the data well, X2(27, N = 291) = 36.59, p = .10."
## [101] "Predictive Validity: The difference in percent of suicides between \"high-risk\" subjects (estimated risk of suicide over 4.94%) and \"not-high-risk\" subjects (11.5% [N = 96] versus 2.1% [N = 40]) was statistically significant (p < .001)."
## [102] "The concurrent validity of the Modified Scale for Suicidal Ideation (MSSI) was assessed by examining the relationship between the MSSI Total Score and other measures of the severity of suicidal ideation. Correlation coefficients were calculated between the MSSI Total Score and the expert clinician's ratings for the entire Study 2 sample (n = 50; Question 1, r = 70; Question 2, r = .76; Question 3, r = .72; Question 4, r = .68) and for those patients (n = 30) with suicidal ideation on the MSSI (Question 1, r = .71; Question 2, r = .69; Question 3, r = .72; and Question 4, r = .65). The MSSI Total Score also correlated significantly with suicide items from the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = .60) and the Modified Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (MHDRS; r = .34). The construct validity of the MSSI was examined by correlating the MSSI with the BDI (r = .34) and Hopelessness Scale (r = .42)."
## [103] "To test the measurement invariance of the instrument, the authors further conducted multiple-group CFA using the third subsample (n = 5,177) from the US data and the sample from China. The results indicated that the hypothesized model of measurement invariance was good, χ² = 1.27, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .03. Moreover, the χ² difference between this invariant model and the model in which parameters were set to be freely estimated across two groups was not significant, χ² = 14.61, df = 14, p > .05. These results suggested that the measurement model for the school relationship was invariant across countries."
## [104] "The correlations between scores for the three subscales were as follows: CD-General With Spirituality, r = .22 (p = .001, N = 207); CD-General and CD-Patient, r = .55 (p < .001, N = 159); Spirituality and CD-Patient, r = .28 (p < .001, N = 159). Considering the CD-General scale, the highest correlation with another measure was on the Fear of Death subscale of the Death Anxiety Profile—Revised (DAP-R; r = .75). The highest correlations for the Spirituality scale were with the DAP-R Approach-Acceptance subscale (r = –.78), the Systems of Belief Inventory (SBI-15R) Beliefs subscale (r = –.82), and the importance of spiritual beliefs item (r = –.72). With respect to the correlations between the combined Concern About Death (CAD) score and the other measures, the highest correlation is with the Fear of Death subscale (r = .77), and the lowest is with the Escape Acceptance subscale (r = –.18)."
## [105] "Discriminant Validity: As a preliminary step, the authors wanted to ensure that individual perceptions of climate of authenticity were not redundant with team social support perceptions. A separate sample of hospital workers who did not meet our main study criteria (N = 211) received the climate of authenticity items (alpha = .78) and three team support items (alpha = .81; based on Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Confirmatory factor analyses supported that a two-factor model was a better fit than a one-factor model [∆X(2)(1) = 133.80, p < .01]. This initial evidence supports the internal consistency of the climate of authenticity items and that perceptions of climate of authenticity were discriminant from team support."
## [106] "In study 1, all eight factor loadings were statistically significant (p = .001), and the average standardized factor loading was .83 (SD = .05). In study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the validity of the measurement model for the multi-item scales. The hypothesized four-factor model separating core self-evaluations, popularity, OCB, and CWB was tested. Fit statistics for the four-factor measurement model were as follow: Chi-squared (623, N = 139) = 1,189.03, p = .001, CFI = .92, SRMR = .075. The 37 factor loadings all were statistically significant (p = .05), and standardized factor loadings for each variable averaged .57 for core self-evaluations, .84 for popularity, .78 for OCB, and .72 for CWB."
## [107] "Convergent/Discriminant Validity: The results of a factor analysis showed that (a) the leadership role occupancy variable loaded with variables such as the number of professional associations the respondent held and (b) the measure did not load on factors that are supposed to measure personality traits or years of working. These results provide evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the leadership role occupancy measure. Construct Validity: Evidence is available for the construct validity of this leadership measure by examining its correlations with other individual items and variables. Leadership role correlated significantly with the number of professional associations led by the respondent (r = .21, p < .001, N = 388 owing to missing data) and with scales formed using similar biohistory items in which respondents reported their past leadership activities in high school (r = .31, p < .001) and in current community activities (r = .15, p < .01)."
## [108] "The correlation between the PPNS-IE and the Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (CNS-IE) for 8-year-olds was significant (r = .78, n = 60, p< .001). A factor analysis found three factors. The PPNS-IE had positive and significant relations to higher achievement and less distancing."
## [109] "Construct Validity: A confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) was conducted on the relevant items of the WFLQ to seek evidence for construct validity. The goodness of fit of the five-factor model, as evidenced by a variety of indices, was not impressive, x2(199, N = 481) = 1,194.77, p < .001; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .81; adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .76; nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .66; comparative fit index (CFI) = .71. However, when compared with a single-factor solution, the fit of the model was acceptable."
## [110] "Construct Validity: Supporting construct validity, Bowling and Hammond's (2008) meta-analyses showed that the only one of 18 hypothesized antecedents that did not yield the expected relationship with the MOAQ-JSS was role overload (p = .03, k = 12, N = 3259). As a whole, results regarding the hypothesized causes of job satisfaction were consistent with the nomological network. Additionally, the MOAQ-JSS yielded positive relationships with each of 22 hypothesized correlates of job satisfaction. The meta-analyses also showed that yielded expected relationships with 6 hypothesized consequences of job satisfaction. Finally, findings regarding the relatively strong relationships between the MOAQ-JSS and emotion-related variables (i.e., affective commitment, job tension, depression, emotional exhaustion, and frustration) provided support for the affective nature of the MOAQ-JSS. Overall, scores were consistent with previous normative data."
## [111] "The results suggest that the two-factor model adequately fit the data, root mean square residual (RMR) = .059, goodness of fit index (GFI) = .94. Further, the two-factor model also fit the data better than did a single-factor comparative model, ΔX2(5, N = 161) = 41.92, p < .005. Thus, the authors are confident in the validity of the internal structure of the Student Athlete Role Conflict Scale as whole and the Role Interference and Role Separation subscales."
## [112] "Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the proposed six correlated latent factor model (interactional justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, outcome favorability, organizational attractiveness, and intentions to apply) with 22 observed variables. The fit produced by this model, however, was poor. Removing three items, none of which were part of the Interactional Justice Scale, improved the overall fit of the model to a reasonable level (Chi-square [137, N = 281] = 356.71, p < .001, TLI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .073). Standardized factor loadings for the Interactional Justice Scale Items ranged from .66 to 1.00."
## [113] "Discriminant Validity: The authors investigated the discriminant validity among the three closely related constructs studied, including the intentions measure, by using confirmatory factor analysis procedures. A restrictive three-factor model (with the two factor pattern coefficients freed) yielded an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (85, N = 302) = 139.04, p < .001; CFI = .976; RMSEA = .046. All items had statistically significant pattern coefficients on their designated factors."
## [114] "Convergent Validity: The five-item measure of benefit perceptions correlated with the original two-item benefit perceptions measure at .87 (p < .01; n = 145)."
## [115] "The validity of the normative belief measure was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA model included the five normative belief items with an acceptable fit, X2(5, N = 80) = 20.35, p < .01, and parameter estimates significant at p < .01. The goodness-of-fit index was .90, with a comparative fit index of .88. Further indicants of the scale’s favorable properties are the average variance extracted value of .47 and a composite reliability of .81 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)."
## [116] "The factor structure of the 22 items marking the SoC and SwC subscales was examined and compared across Sample 2 (N = 2070) and Sample 3 (N = 988). A principal axis factor analysis was conducted. In both samples, an examination of the scree plot indicated the extraction of two factors accounting for 44.7 and 46.5% variance, respectively."
## [117] "Initial validity evidence of this measure was evaluated in a pilot study (N= 1000) before inclusion in the final study."
## [118] "Concurrent Validity: A sub-sample’s (N = 33) resiliency was positively related to salivary IgA levels (an immune marker). Predictive Validity: Results from hierarchical regressions demonstrated that resiliency measured in Wave 1 was positively related to job satisfaction, work-life balance, and quality of life; and negatively related to physical/psychological symptoms and injuries at work in Wave 2."
## [119] "Content/Factorial Validity: The content validity of the scale was determined from expert opinion and appraisal data collected from 92 teachers, stress researchers and practitioners. Data collected from two samples of special education teachers (n = 370; « = 37I) and one sample of regular education teachers (« = 433) were then subjected to factor analyses followed by varimax and oblique rotations. Six factors resulted for each of two measures: stress strength and stress frequency. Additional analyses indicated that each subscale has moderate-to-high correlations between the strength and frequency measures of each subscale, and a large degree of agreement for the content validity of each subscale, for each of six subscales: Personal/Professional Stressors; Professional Distress; Discipline and Motivation; Emotional Manifestations; Biobehavioural Manifestations; and Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations."
## [120] "Construct Validity: High procrastinators (N = 44); compared to low procrastinators (N = 45) indicated that they spent less time and less adequate time working on their projects (p < .01). High and low procrastinators did not differ on any other dimension. Considering the wide differences in method between the true-false personality inventory and the personal projects questionnaire, these results provided good support for the construct validity of the procrastinarion scale."
## [121] "Convergent validity (Pearson) between parent ASSQ-GIRL and the full ASSQ scale was good (r = 0.85 n = 191; p < .001). The mean total scores of the ASSQ-GIRL differentiated between the ASD and ADHD groups of both girls and boys, but this was not the case with the Conners-10."
## [122] "Structural Equation Modeling indicated significant relations between TASCQ scales and students’ needs, supporting the validity of TASCQ scores. The model fit was good (χ² (97, N = 697) = 371.824, p < .001; CFI = .942; NNFI = .928; GFI = .931; RMSEA = .064, 90% confidence interval [CI] = .057, .071; SRMR = .040). Specifically, teacher autonomy-supportive structure was related positively to students’ autonomy (γ = .39, p < .001) and involvement was related positively to students’ competence (γ = .44, p < .001) and relatedness (γ = .54, p < .001)."
## [123] "Validity testing was based mainly on clinician ratings (r = 0.49, n = 69)."
## [124] "study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [125] "A study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [126] "study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [127] "study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [128] "A study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [129] "A study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [130] "A study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [131] "A study of the tests’ construct validity involving a sample of N=256 adult respondents and 270 children and young people provided empirical confirmation of the theoretical model on which the WAF test battery is based and was able to distinguish it from other models."
## [132] "The internal consistency of the test was calculated as Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliabilities of the two variables Alcohol risk and Dissimulation vary between r=0.73 and r=0.79 for the long form and between r=0.72 and r=.076 for the short form. The consistency of measurement of the individual variables is adequately high. The ATV can thus be regarded as a sufficiently precise diagnostic instrument. In both the long and the short form the variables Alcohol risk and Dissimulation correlate very strongly with each other; that is, in both forms the two variables measure the same trait (Alcohol risk: r=0.97; p=0.000; N=100/Honesty: r=0.99; p=0.000; N=98)."
## [133] "Factor Structure: Consistent with the original Spanish version, the Italian version showed a three-factor structure (Interpretation Anxiety, Examination Anxiety, and Fear for Asking for Help), and results indicated substantial equivalence of factor model parameters across countries. Validity: To evaluate the SAS validity, Pearson’s product–moment correlations relating SAS score and basic math abilities (PMP), math self-efficacy (SMP), statistics self-efficacy (CSSE), and statistics attitude (SATS) scores were calculated. The results attested that all the relationships were significant—PMP: r(N = 410) = −.19, p < .001; SPM: r(N = 421) = −.36, p < .001; CSSE: r(N = 336) = −.18, p < .01; SATS: r(N = 335) = −.46, p < .001."
## [134] "Studies show correlations with Raven’s matrix tests APM (Raven, Raven & Court, 1998) and SPM (Raven, Raven & Court, 1979) of r=0.30 to r=0.41 (APM, N=237) and r=0.42 to r=0.52 (SPM, N= 256) for the item groups and r=0.52 and r=0.66 for the overall test score. Correlations with INKA (Heyde, 1995) are between r=0.36 and r=0.47, or r=0.54 for the test as a whole (N=320)."
## [135] "The major variables comprising the perception of efficacy in the domain under consideration – rock climbing – were identified inductively by semi-structured interviews with active recreational rock climbers (N = 5), climbing instructors (N = 2) and academic specialists in the areas of social cognitive theory (N = 2), risk taking (N = 1), and sport psychology (N = 2). The ten variables identified were congruent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997)."
## [136] "Two team-level confirmatory factor analyses using maximum likelihood estimation were performed: one on the monitoring and trust items of T1 and one for T2. The results of the analyses indicated an adequate fit and supported convergent validity for a two-factor model at both measurement moments: T1, X² (26, N = 67) = 61.34, p < .01, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .08; T2, X²(26, N = 67) = 74.67, p < .01, CFI = .95, SRMR = .076; all item-factor loadings were significant (p < .05). Analyses also indicated that the hypothesized two-factor models fitted the data significantly better than a one-factor model, thus providing evidence of discriminant validity."
## [137] "Face Validity: Face validity was tested through a process of review first with an academic colleague experienced in the field of organizational learning and then with a focus group comprised of MBA students (N = 35). The measures were further refined in two pilot tests with employees of the host firm. Discriminant Validity: Confirmatory factor analysis (AMOS 5.0) was used to test the measurement model for construct and discriminant validity of support for creative thinking along with four other variables in the current study (transformational leadership, goal clarity, job satisfaction, and acquisition acceptance). The results indicated a good fit for the proposed five factor structure (χ2 = 298.9/df 125, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95)."
## [138] "The ComFor was tested on a sample of 623 children and adults from the Netherlands and Flanders with a developmental level between 12 and 60 months on the domain of daily living skills. The sample consisted of three subgroups: (1) a group of children and adults with autism and an intellectual disability (N=310), children and adults with an intellectual disability without autism (N=174), and a control group of typically developing children (N=139). Construct validity has been established by comparing results of the groups with and without autism, principal component analysis, computation of intercorrelations, and analysis of the course of the scores of the clinical subsamples. Convergent and divergent correlation patterns were also identified. Also see the test manual: Verpoorten, R., Noens, I., Berckelaer-Onnes, I. van (2008) ComFor; Forerunners in Communication. Manual. Leiden: PITS."
## [139] "A factor analysis extracted three compliance factors (Influence of Others, Prevention, and Medication Affinity) and five noncompliance factors (Denial/ Dysphoria, Logistical Problems, Rejection of Label, Family Influence, and Negative Therapeutic Alliance). The 1-month post discharge global ROME compliance and noncompliance scores were correlated with 1-month Drug Attitude Inventory and Neuroleptic Dysphoria Scale summary scores (n = 33). All summary scores correlated strongly with each other in the expected direction."
## [140] "The Drug Attitude Inventory, was compared to the only other scale in common use. This instrument developed was by Van Putten and May (1978). At 24 hours the product-moment correlation between the scales was r = 0.76 (p < 0.0001, n = 52) and at 48 hours, r = 0.74 (p < 0.001, n = 49). The rate of concordance between the scales in classifying the sample into dysphoric re- sponders with negative subjective feelings and nondysphoric responders was excellent."
## [141] "Convergent/Discriminant Validity: Interfactor correlations ranged from .64 to .87, suggesting a clear underlying unifying construct. However, none of the confidence intervals around the factor correlations contained 1.0, supporting the discriminant validity of the separate dimensions of the instrument. The authors constrained the highest correlation to 1.0 and tested the fit of this model against the unconstrained model. As with the trait measure, the constraint led to a significant loss in fit, delta X2(1, N = 204) = 19.98, p < .00001, again supporting the discriminant validity of the model."
## [142] "Convergent/Divergent Validity: Good convergent validity was demonstrated by the moderate to large correlations between the SPRS and measures of social anxiety (SPAI r = -0.65, p < 0.001) and shyness (SRS r = -0.55, p < 0.001). Participants with poorer performance scores reported being more shy and more socially phobic than those with better performance. Within the phobic subsamples, good divergent validity was evinced by the small correlation of the SPRS with the Beck Anxiety Inventory score (r = -0.25, p < 0.09; n = 47). Criterion Validity: A one-way ANOVA with the total score as the dependent variable revealed significant group differences among the socially phobic, anxious control, and normal control groups, F(2,73) = 16.31, p < 0.001."
## [143] "Construct Validity: Analysis of the pilot data suggested a four-factor structure: Traditional Management, Traditional Teaching, Constructivist Teaching, and Constructivist Parent. A validation study included preservice teachers (n = 896). The results did not confirm the four-factor structure; further analysis suggested a three-factor structure, eliminating the Constructivist Parent factor."
## [144] "The S-LANSS scale correctly identified 75% of pain types when self-completed and 80% when used in interview format. Sensitivity for self-completed S-LANSS scores ranged from 74% to 78%, depending on the cutoff score. There were significant associations between NPS items and total score with S-LANSS score. In a postal survey, completed questionnaires were returned by 57% of patients (n = 174). Internal consistency and convergent validity of the survey S-LANSS scores were confirmed."
## [145] "Validity: Predictive/criterion; r = -0.23, p = 0.024, N = 99."
## [146] "In order to assess the scale’s validity, the Polish version of FAS was correlated with other known anxiety questionnaires in separate studies. The correlation coefficients were: with Cattell’s Overt-Covert Anxiety Scale r = 0.48 (N = 88), with Spielberger’s STAI r = 0.61 (N = 83), with Taylor’s MAS r = 0.64 (N = 102), with Beck’s Hopelessness Scale r = 0.41 (N = 60), and with Eysenck’s Neuroticism Scale r = 0.60 (N = 135). These results indicate that the FA is related to the anxiety sphere of personality and that besides the common variance with other sorts of anxiety it has its own specificity; this I believe being the aspect of personal future perspective."
## [147] "When the number of dissatisfactions in the first 22 items of the general satisfaction test is correlated with the number of dissatisfactions checked in the second 22 items it was found that the correlation is .75 corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula (N = 168)."
## [148] "Convergent Validity: The ABUSI total scores were positively correlated with the total scores of the Sheehan Disability Scale, Impairment Total (SDS-I), Self-Monitoring Suicide Ideation Scale (SMSI), Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, Self-Harm subscale (BASIS-SH), and the frequency of self-injury, and negatively correlated with the Pediatric Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PQ-LES). Predictive Validity: Higher ABUSI total scores at admission significantly increased the odds of re-admission (n = 349, χ2 = 7.32, P<0.01, Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=1.02–1.11). Higher ABUSI total scores at admission decreased the odds of clinically significant improvement on the PQ-LES at discharge (n=251, χ2=3.98, P<0.05, OR=0.97, CI=0.94–0.99)."
## [149] "Construct Validity: P Scale invariance across sexes and its relations with self-esteem, life satisfaction, optimism, positive negative affect, depression, and the Big Five provided further evidence of the internal and construct validity of the new measure in a large community sample (N = 3,589). Measurement invariance and construct validity of P Scale were further supported across samples in different countries and cultures, including Italy (N = 689), the United States (N = 1,187), Japan (N = 281), and Spain (N = 302)."
## [150] "Results supported five factors that were designated as labeling, negative attribution, separation, status loss, and controllability. Using these factors, a second study (N = 263) demonstrated support for the goodness of fit of the proposed 5-dimensional stigma model."
## [151] "Factor Structure/Construct Validity: Factor-analytic data support the validity of the THQ. Data were collected on a large number of subjects at posttreatment (n= 294) and at follow-up (n= 241), and results were similar at these two time points. At both, the first three factors loaded clearly on three major components of pain management programs: exercise, psychological-educational interventions, and medical interventions and visits. The finding that correlations were higher between more similar types of treatments, or when one treatment was a component of another, supports the validity of the THQ. Divergent Validity: Divergent validity was demonstrated by the lack of significant correlations among more dissimilar items, such as between injections (which played only an ancillary role at both centers) and ratings of either the whole program or psychological and educational interventions."
## [152] "Exploratory factor analysis (n = 112) showed that all 14 items fit well into a four-factor model explaining 67.2% of total variance, which is in line with the original design of the revised checklist."
## [153] "Convergent Validity: The scale demonstrated convergent validity, as it was moderately correlated with a measure of general weight concern (The Revised Restraint Scale; Herman & Polivy, 1984; r = .49, N = 100, p < .0001)."
## [154] "Content Validity: Content validity of the instrument was established via an expert review panel (n=6). Factor Structure: Exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) using Varimax rotation was conducted on the final data to verify construct validity of the instrument."
## [155] "The hypothesis that dissatisfaction with one's self concept would be related to a negative view of human nature was confirmed (r = .65, N = 100). As expected, there are significant negative correlations (r = -.42 to -.55) between the substantive dimensions of the PHN Scale and political cynicism. This indicates that those who are cynical about politicians tend to see human nature as untrustworthy, selfish, conforming, and lacking in will power. Likewise, there are negative correlations between these subscales and Machiavellianism, ranging from -.38 to -.67. The correlations between PHN Scales and Machiavellianism indicate that the Machiavellian type does possess a cynical, negative view of human nature, as revealed by the PHN Scale. Correlations between the \"Faith-in-People\" Scale and the substantive elements of human nature are positive, ranging from .39 to .75. This is to be expected, as both scales attempt to measure the goodness, worthiness, and improvability of human nature."
## [156] "The correlation between the revised scale and the original version was r - .98 in a sample of undergraduates (N = 295)."
## [157] "In a large sample of women (n =483) at 6-8 weeks postpartum, scores on the questionnaire were highly correlated with scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). Cluster analysis demonstrated that, among depressed women with similar symptom scores on the CIS-R, the MAQ discriminated a group with low MAQ scores and a group with high MAQ scores. Face validity: The initial list of items was derived from two sources: (1) clinical experience of working with women suffering from postnatal depression, and (2) available research evidence. Concurrent validity: Scores on the Maternal Attitudes Questionnaire and on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale showed a high degree of correlation (r=0.60, p<0.001). There was a significant correlation between Revised Clinical Interview Schedule score and total score on the MAQ (Pearson's r=0.50, p<0.001). The MAQ distinguished those with and without RDC major or minor depression."
## [158] "Scores on the ATWBS were correlated with scores on the Attitude Towards Ex-mental Patients Scale (ATEMPS) to estimate the convergent validity of the ATWBS. A product moment correlation coefficient of 0.30 (p < .05, N =117) was obtained, and this serves as the validity coefficient of the ATWBS."
## [159] "Child welfare professionals (N = 130) rated two versions of a hypothetical case using the ROME to determine its discriminative validity. Results suggested that raters could discriminate between two similar but distinct hypothetical cases significantly (McGee et al., 1990). Finally, percentage agreement (N = 2) was calculated for each maltreatment/age subscale for each case and ranged from 64.8% (psychological maltreatment) to 100% (sexual abuse)."
## [160] "Test validity: Although the mean rating for validity of the MI inventory in describing preferences was a high 75.58, data indicate a substantial range of variability in assessments (SD = 10.50, range 40-90, n = 56)."
## [161] "Convergent validity: the first version of the questionnaire was given to the staff and was later compared with answers from the same staff about the same children (n = 50) given at personal interviews. The items then were reconstructed and reformulated in accordance with experiences from this comparison. The second version (n = 49) was also compared in the same way with personal interviews of the observers. In this comparison the correlations of single items between questionnaire and interview were between .6 and 1.0 with one exception, \"Avoids appearing naked in front of company\" (.5)."
## [162] "Known-Groups Validity: A known-group difference test was used to assess the validity of the measure of the intention to support a strike. The first subset of the sample came from a state-managed utility company (n = 16) whose employees were known for actively supporting the strikes, and the second came from a private bank (n = 34) whose employees did not join such national strikes. A higher intention to support antiprivatization strikes was found in the utility company than in the bank, hence lending support to the validity of the measure."
## [163] "Construct Validity: The correlations of the revised scale with other schizotypy scales for males (n = 320) and females (n = 507), respectively, were Perceptual Aberration (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1978), .11 and .18; Magical Ideation (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983), .04 and .19; Physical Anhedonia, .25 and .24; and Impulsive Nonconformity, .14 and .21. These values indicate that the revised scale is largely independent of the earlier scale, providing support for construct validity."
## [164] "Factor Structure: Factor analysis of the first sample (N = 91) yielded a 5-factor solution (limit setting, monitoring, discipline, control and concern) and accounted for 65% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analyses on a second sample of Latina mothers recruited into a childhood obesity prevention study (N = 714) showed that a 26- item 5-factor solution (limit setting, monitoring, discipline, control and reinforcement) provided the best fit for the data. Predictive Validity: Parenting strategies characterized as controlling were associated with a lower BMI among children. Construct Validity: Consistent with our hypothesis and demonstrating good construct validity, positive correlations were observed between the PEAS subscales and subscales on the Child-Feeding Questionnaire."
## [165] "Content Validity: The questionnaire was assessed for content validity and clarity by iterative discussions among a small group of research coordinators (n = 2), epileptologists (n = 3), and neurology residents (n = 3) who did not participate in the survey."
## [166] "Sensitivity: The range of means indicated that the measure was able to differentiate the teams according to their performance. Construct Validity: The correlation between the measure and the overall ratings given by subject- matter experts (and the standardized beta coefficient) was .79 (n = 48, p < .0001)."
## [167] "Content Validity: Confirmed through interviews with patients from general practice, by feedback from GPs, and expert researchers in the field. Concurrent Validity: Supported by strong correlations with the Reynolds empathy measure (r = 0.85, n = 10, P < 0.001) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (r = 0.84, n = 10, P < 0.001)."
## [168] "Construct Validity: A pilot study (n = 168) was conducted to assess the construct validity of the two satisfaction with life scales. Satisfaction with work life was correlated more strongly with overall job satisfaction (r = .73) than with marital satisfaction (r = .15). Nonwork life satisfaction was correlated more strongly with marital satisfaction (r = .53) than with overall job satisfaction (r = .33), providing evidence that the two scales differentiated between the work and nonwork life domains."
## [169] "Content Validity: The development of the Restless Legs Syndrome-Next Day Impact (RLS-NDI) questionnaire included concept elicitation interviews with RLS patients in the United States (n = 20); grounded theory data collection and analysis methods; and review by clinical and measurement experts to generate items, responses, and instructions. Cognitive interviews (n = 15) were conducted to ensure understanding of the RLS-NDI, concept comprehensiveness, and identification of any necessary item revisions. Impacts on next day functioning attributed to disturbed sleep due to RLS symptoms included activities of daily living (i.e., work, household chores), cognitive functioning (i.e., concentration, forgetfulness, mental tiredness, alertness), emotional functioning (i.e., irritability, depressed mood), physical functioning (i.e., physical tiredness, active leisure activities), energy, daytime sleepiness, and social functioning (i.e., relationships, social activities/situations)."
## [170] "Factor Structure and Construct Validity: A five-factor solution was specified: ‘adherence with health regimens’ (alpha=.86), ‘impact of care and treatment’ (alpha=.83), ‘support’ (alpha=.81), ‘motivation’ (alpha=.78), and ‘sense of normality’ (alpha=.78). The five-factor solution verified the structure of the theoretical model behind the questionnaire. Content Validity: Adolescents with diabetes (N=10) and clinical practitioners (N=5) evaluated the content validity of the instrument as good. Criterion Validity: To confirm the criterion validity, the GHbA1c values and the information about adherence collected with the questionnaire (n=91, n=346) were compared. According to the chi-square test, a significant positive connection was found between them."
## [171] "Cross-validation analyses provide strong support for the validity and reliability of the CQS across samples, time and countries (Singapore and the USA). In addition, results in three substantive studies across different cultural, educational and work settings (N = 794) demonstrate a systematic pattern of relationships between dimensions of CQ and specific intercultural effectiveness outcomes."
## [172] "Convergent Validity: All of the RBI scales except The Sexes Are Different were significantly positively correlated with the IBT, which measures irrational beliefs about self. The rs for the RBI scales with the IBT (in the order of the above paragraph) were .31, .21, .14, .28, and .11, respectively (N = 200; p < .05 for the first four scales). Construct Validity: For the combined sample of clinical and nonclinical couples, scores on all five RBI scales were significantly negatively correlated with MAS scores."
## [173] "Content Validity: Measures were developed using the 'act frequency approach' of Buss and Craik (1983) whereby registered nurses (n = 38) were asked to nominate empowering and disempowering acts relevant to interactions between staff and older patients. The resulting lists of 98 acts for each disposition were hypothetically judged by older hospitalized people (n = 20) as to the extent they would be either 'control giving' (empowering acts) or 'control taking' (disempowering acts) if personally experienced. The twenty highest scoring acts in each category were incorporated into the Patient Empowerment Scale. The ward scoring lowest on the 40-item PES (i.e. the least empowering) was the elderly care rehabilitation ward. Moreover, this ward showed an inverse correlation between participant age and exposure to empowering care."
## [174] "Concurrent Validity: Concurrent validity tests showed that there was a positive correlation between the CSAS-C and heart rate in the preoperative period (r=.49, n=112, p<.01) and in the postoperative period (r=.32, n=112, p<.01). A medium to small positive correlation between the CSAS-C and mean arterial blood pressure was detected in the preoperative period (r=.40, n=112, p<.01) and in the postoperative period (r=.25, n=112, p<.01). Children’s state anxiety in the pre- and postoperative periods was positively correlated with mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate."
## [175] "Construct validity: Construct validity of the PASECI was satisfactory, with positive relationships between self-efficacy for managing atopic dermatitis and general perceived self-efficacy (r = 0.30, n = 120, p = 0.001); self-efficacy for managing atopic dermatitis and self-reported task performance (r = 0.766, n = 120, p < 0.001); and self-efficacy for managing atopic dermatitis and outcome expectations (r = 0.486, n = 120, p < 0.001)."
## [176] "Content Validity: In accordance with recommendations of De Vellis (2003), together with the pre-pilot survey maximised the chance that any items used in the later stages of scale development demonstrate appropriate content validity. Construct Validity: The significant relationships between the LCN and the theoretically related NEP, INS, and CNS provide evidence of the new LCN’s convergent validity, and thus its construct validity. Discriminant Validity: Consistent with these previous findings, the. LCN had no relationship with openness to change values r = -.02 N = 249 p < .697 in this present field study, and only a non-significant negative relationship with conservatism values r = -.11 N = 249 p < .077. These results provide support for the discriminant validity of the new LCN and add to the evidence of its construct validity. Criterion-related Validity: Results provided consistent evidence for criterion-related validity."
## [177] "Convergent Validity: Convergent validity was confirmed through correlations between the mini-SPIN-R and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale anxiety subscale, avoidance subscale, and total score. Divergent Validity: The mini-SPIN-R had a significant, small correlation with the MADRS (r = 0.21, n = 532, p < 0.001)."
## [178] "Factor Structure: The factor structure of the scale was examined and a confirmatory factor analysis was also performed on a second sample (N = 276). Six factors were obtained: mood enhancing (Enhance), mood worsening (Worsen), concealing emotions from others (Conceal), use of inauthentic displays (Inauthentic), poor emotional skills (Poor skills), and use of diversion to enhance another’s mood (Divert)."
## [179] "Concurrent Validity: The scores of the scale demonstrated some evidence validity against a parallel parent-completed PICS for the PRD items (N = 27, r = .47, 95% CI [0.11, 0.72])."
## [180] "The measure's validity was supported through correlations obtained with other study variables. Factor Structure: In the total sample (n=400, 290 and 211 at surveys 1, 2 and 3) only one factor was significant."
## [181] "Two sample t test, chi-square, logistic regression, and ROC curve analyses were performed. Fallers (6.35 ± 1.7, n = 195) and nonfallers (5.70 ± 1.9, n = 2,052) had significantly different (p = .011) MAHC-10 scores. The MAHC-10 cutoff score of 4 demonstrated 96.9% sensitivity and 13.3% specificity; however, ROC curve analyses revealed a cutoff score of 6 maximized combined sensitivity and specificity. The MAHC-10 is valid for fall risk screening in the home health setting; however, a cutoff score of 6 may more accurately predict fall risk."
## [182] "Criterion Validity: The correlation (rho) between the NPDS and the Barthel Index for all groups was -0.87; R2 =0.76 (n =154). Per patient group rho varied from -0.70 (R2 = 0.49) to -0.93 (R2 =0.86). The overall correlation between the NPDS and Care Dependency Scale was larger than the criterion of rho =0.60 (r =-0.74; R2 =0.55) but was B<0.60 in the rheumatoid arthritis and tuberculosis group."
## [183] "Convergent and Discriminant Validity: CD-RISC scores were positively correlated with Ego-Resiliency Scale. Pearson r=0.69, P<0.001), on the other hand, negatively correlated with negative affect scores (N=246. Pearson r=0.44, P<0.001)."
## [184] "Concurrent validity: Concurrent validity was examined by correlating the SCI-PG with the SOGS (r = 0.78; n = 72; P≤0.001). The SCI-PG exhibited a fair but significant correlation with gambling severity as assessed by the Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale Modified for PG (PG-YBOCS; Hollander et al., 2000) (r = 0.375; n = 72; P= 0.02). Discriminant validity: Discriminant validity was assessed against the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) (Hamilton, 1960) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) (Hamilton, 1959) using correlation coefficients. Measures hypothesized not to be highly correlated with gambling severity displayed discriminant validity with the SCI-PG: HAM-A (r = 0.23; n = 72; P= 0.17) and HAM-D (r = 0.19; n = 72; P= 0.28). Sensitivity/Specificity/Predictive value: The interview demonstrated high sensitivity (0.882), specificity (1.00), positive predictive value (1.00), and negative predictive value (0.666)."
## [185] "Construct Validity: A cut-score of 8 best discriminated those with anxiety disorders from those without, successfully classifying 78% of the sample with 69% sensitivity and 74% specificity. Results from a larger sample (n = 171) showed a single factor structure and excellent convergent and divergent validity."
## [186] "Convergent Validity: Of the 127 participants, 33.1% (n = 42) met the criteria for a DSM-IV-TR PTSD diagnosis using the LEAD procedure and 30.7% (n = 39) met the criteria for a DSM-IV-TR PTSD diagnosis using the PTSD-IVR. The results for agreement between the LEAD procedure and the PTSD-IVR were calculated. The AUC value was .91, suggesting strong evidence of convergence. Additionally, Cohen’s κ value was .84, indicating excellent agreement between the LEAD procedure and the PTSD-IVR."
## [187] "Convergent and Divergent Validity: Supporting the convergent and divergent validity of the RSSIQ, most scales were positively associated with reasons for living, but were not significantly associated with suicide risk (with the exception of Fear of Discovery and Stigma, which was positively associated with suicide risk). Predictive Validity: Consistent with our conceptualizations of vulnerability-related reasons as conferring greater risk for chronic non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), individuals who self-injured (n = 56) during the follow-up period endorsed greater Fear of Discovery and Stigma. Incremental Validity: Hierarchical logistic regression revealed that the two higher-order RSSIQ scales together significantly predicted engagement in NSSI at T2, beyond T1 NSSI frequency, emotion dysregulation, depression symptoms and interpersonal problems."
## [188] "Content Validity: Content validity was established for the survey by using experts (n = 5) in the field of educational technology. Additionally, the survey was distributed to preservice teachers (n = 40) in a technology course to check for understanding. Most questions were retained (n = 45) and five were revised as suggested by the experts and students to better communicate the questions."
## [189] "Face and Content Validity: The initial item pool was reviewed by a focus group (n = 4) of medical students to assess face and content validity for the intended respondent group. Convergent Validity: Convergent validity was confirmed using the Mental Disorder Understanding Scale. Divergent Validity: The divergent validity of the MICA scale (version 2.0) was confirmed in relation to the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Health Belief Questionnaire. Construct Validity: The construct validity of the measure was established through the results of a factor analysis."
## [190] "The means (mean level of all items) between subjects (n = 256) varied heavily (min = 2.77, max = 5.86). A two-way mixed-effect ANOVA showed that the between people variation was about 11% of the all-item mean variation. This focuses on the fact that response set and/or general self-esteem is strongly present in these measurements. The between measures (p = 70) (within people) variation is also notable (min = 2.25, max = 5.50)."
## [191] "Construct Validity: The construct validity was tested using the data from the study subjects (N = 36) (Kline, 1993; Streiner & Norman, 1992)."
## [192] "External Validity: Expert score--R = 0.44 (n = 227, P = 0.005, Spearman); Eyes Hands Feet (EHF) score (subjects with leprosy only)--R = 0.39 (n = 724, P < 0.001, Spearman); Self-assessment--(n = 496, P < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test)."
## [193] "Content Validity: To ensure that the PETS had good content validity, the items were developed based on pilot interviews. By using recipient accounts, the researchers could design a measure that accurately reflects the nature of positive transplant changes. Concurrent Validity: The PETS concurred with responses to the open-ended item. A Mann–Whitney U-test revealed a significant difference in PETS scores of individuals who reported negative effects of transplantation (Md = 49, n = 37) and those who reported positive effects of transplantation (Md = 52, n = 243), U = 3450, z = −2.28, p = .022, r = .13. Discriminant Validity: To establish the instrument’s discriminant validity, it was tested against measures of transplant worry and guilt. PETS scores were not significantly related to transplant worry or guilt, however, higher scores were significantly correlated with better adherence, more disclosure and more responsibility."
## [194] "For preliminary validity, the global score obtained on the FTD-patient scale was significantly correlated with positive FTD Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History (CASH) (Andreasen et al., 1992). (Pearson= 0.298; P=0.004 [two-tailed]; N=90) but did not correlate with poverty of speech (Pearson=0.038; P=0.723 [two-tailed]; N=90). The global score obtained on the FTD-patient scale was significantly correlated with the kind of accommodation in which patients were living (Spearman's Rho=0.291; P=0.006 [two-tailed]; N=89), i.e. patients reporting more FTD lived in less independent types of accommodation."
## [195] "Criterion-Related Validity: The DMI-10 returned a moderate validity coefficient (0.52, P < 0.001, n = 160) with psychiatrist-rated depression severity. Also, a kappa value of 0.43 (P < .001) in predicting the psychiatrist’s judgment of clinically significant depression. Convergent Validity: Total DMI-10 scores correlated strongly (P < 0.01) with the total Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI-PC; Beck et al., 1997; r = 0.80) and the seven-item depression subscale (HDS) of the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983; r = 0.70) scores. Sensitivity: When the psychiatrist’s judgment was used as the criterion, the sensitivity for the DMI-10 was 100.0%. Specificity: In comparison to the DMI-18 and BDI-PC (72.4 and 71.3%, respectively), specificity for the DMI-10 was slightly inferior at 66.7%."
## [196] "Content Validity: The first (N = 282 adults) and second (N = 458 adults) pilot testing phases used Rasch analysis that showed the items were capturing a range of balance traits and that the items fit intuitively with the model of life balance."
## [197] "Convergent Validity: The total 18-Item Depression in the Medically Ill Screening Measure (DMI-18) score correlated strongly (Spearman correlations) with total Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI-PC; Beck et al., 1997) scores (0.78, P < 0.01, n = 203) and total Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) scores (0.72, P < 0.01, n = 97). These analyses support the convergent validity of the DMI-18. Discriminant validity: This measure discriminated between depressed and non-depressed medically ill patients. Criterion-related Validity: Evidence of criterion-related validity was found by examining the capacity of the measure's derived cut-off point to predict the psychiatrist’s judgment of clinically significant depression."
## [198] "Convergent Validity: The total score of the Depression in the Medically Ill Screening Measure correlated strongly with total Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care scores (r = 0.80, p < 0.01, n = 35) and with total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (r = 0.72, p < 0.01, n = 32), for the relevant subsets. Criterion-related Validity: The Depression in the Medically Ill Screening Measure demonstrated evidence of criterion-related validity."
## [199] "Predictability: The EDAM total score was developed to predict one's risk of having an eating disorder. Logistic regression was conducted to assess if it could significantly predict an eating disorder in males. The omnibus test of model coefficients resulted in χ2 = 36.026, df = 1, N = 78, p < .001. The model was significant at predicting an eating disorder correctly at an overall percentage of 82.1% of the men."
## [200] "Convergent validity: The Rasch test scores had a correlation of r = .55 (p < .01, n = 368) with the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPB-R; Woodcock, 1991) Picture Vocabulary scores, r = .57 (p < .01, n = 367) with the WLPB-R Passage Comprehension, and r = .61 (p < .01, n = 368) with the WLPB-R Letter-Word Identification."
## [201] "Adult participants (n = 146) in the Polish arm of the ongoing Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study completed FFQs on two occasions, as well as four 24-h dietary recalls (DRs) during a 12-month period. Correlation coefficients (r) and de-attenuated correlation coefficients between dietary recalls and both FFQs were calculated for selected macro- and micronutrients. Agreement between the two methods was evaluated by classification into quartiles and the Bland–Altman method. For urban participants, FFQ2 generally underestimated energy, protein and fat compared to the FFQ1 and mean of DRs. In rural areas, compared to DRs, both FFQs overestimated energy and macronutrients. For both urban and rural settings, de-attenuated correlation exceeded 0.4 for almost all nutrients and the exact agreement in quartile categorisation was >66%."
## [202] "Content Validity: A panel of five experts engaged in a brainstorming session to generate many potentially suitable items. The panel then engaged in an iterative process of shortlisting items and discussing precise wording, finally reaching consensus on the use of a single question. Concurrent Validity: Comparison of PHQ-9 and SMS responses at 3 months demonstrated a moderate to high degree of agreement (Kendall's tau-b = 0.57, p < 0.0001, n = 220). Score Distribution: Text responses contained the full range of scores from 1 to 9 and tended to be normally distributed (using all valid texts: n = 6137, mean = 5.0, SD = 2.18, Median = 5.0, Interquartile Range: 3.0-7.0)."
## [203] "The comparison of the equality of the covariance matrices for these two age groups of children on the CCSC was not significant. Box's M=76.53, chi squared (55)=71.86, ns. The comparison of the covariance matrices for girls (n=118) and boys (n=64) using Box's M test was 92.33, chi squared (55)=86.29, p=.004. Comparing the findings of the most restrictive model in which all error terms, factor correlations, and factor loadings were constrained to be equal across the two groups to the findings of the least restrictive model (i.e., no constraints) resulted in a chi-square difference test of delta chi squared (25)=34.48, p<.10, suggesting that these two groups were invariant in terms of the underlying measurement and factor structure. Thus, there was not enough evidence to show significant differences between the factor structures for boys and girls in their response to this measure."
## [204] "Convergent Validity: The CETSCALE was correlated with an open-ended measure taken two years prior to the CETSCALE administration (\"Please describe your views of whether it is right and appropriate for American consumers to purchase products that are manufactured in foreign countries\"). Two coders were in high agreement (93% concurrence) in classifying responses as either \"ethnocentric\" or \"nonethnocentric.\" The correlation between the two measures (r = .54, n = 388, p < .001) supports the CETSCALE's convergent validity. Discriminant Validity: All correlations between the CETSCALE and its related constructs (patriotism, politicoeconomic conservatism, and dogmatism) were high and statistically significant. Nomological Validity: The overall pattern of results provided strong support for the nomological validity of the consumer ethnocentrism concept and its measurement via the CETSCALE."
## [205] "Concurrent Validity: Pearson product-moment coefficients were calculated for the scores of the Schizotypy Traits Questionnaire and the Borderline Traits Scale and scores of the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale--Revised; Persian Version. All correlations were significant statistically. The correlation coefficient for the Schizotypy Traits Questionnaire (Jackson & Claridge, 1991) with the Persian form of .61 (N=300, p<.001) was higher than that for the Borderline Traits Scale (Jackson & Claridge, 1991; r = .49, N=300, p < .001)."
## [206] "Discriminant Validity: A sample of undergraduates (N = 87) got only two-thirds of the facts correct, compared to 80% correct among graduate students (N = 44) in human development, and 90% correct among faculty (N = 11) in human development. These differences supported the validity of the quiz."
## [207] "Construct Validity: The SEQ-SP scores were significantly negatively correlated with total scores on the Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index (CASI; Silverman et al., 1991) (Pearson's r = –.38, N = 43, p < .05, two-tailed), displaying a medium effect size of 14.4%. The SEQ-SP scores were also significantly positively correlated with the initial Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT; Lang & Lazovik, 1963) scores (Pearson's r = .402, N = 43, p < .01, two-tailed) and follow up session scores (Pearson's r = .65, N = 43, p < .01, two-tailed), displaying a large effect size of 14.4% and 41.6% respectively."
## [208] "Content Validity: The majority of the items were developed from a comprehensive review of the literature on racial/ethnic health disparities. Another four items were recommended by an expert reviewer. A review by published authorities in racial/ethnic health disparities or survey research helped to ensure the content validity of the instrument. A pilot test with undergraduate students (n = 23) found the survey had good acceptability and readability level (SMOG = 11th grade). Construct Validity: The items created for the a priori Individual responsibility and Social determinants subscales of the AREHD scale were two distinct subscales (e.g., two dimensions). Criterion (Predictive) Validity: The social determinants of racial/ethnic health disparities scores were significantly associated with increased funding support for selected social safety net programs."
## [209] "Content Validity: The 14 practice-related techniques in the CVAD; TTQ were based on the personal clinical experiences of members of the research team, anecdotal feedback from nurses who attended CVAD classes taught by researchers, the book Policies and Procedures for Infusion Nursing (Infusion Nurses Society, 2011), and recommendations or descriptions in the literature. No changes were made to the items based on pilot study results in a convenience sample (N = 26)."
## [210] "Discriminant Validity: The SPUNS short form was able to discriminate between support persons of survivors who had (n = 147), and those who had not received treatment in the past month (n = 969)."
## [211] "Construct validity: The authors used both first-order and hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the EPS’s convergent and discriminant validity in relation to the other perfectionism subscales. Criterion validity: The EPS showed good criterion validity in relation to psychosocial outcome variables. In particular, EPS total score correlated positively with depression, anxiety, and stress, and negatively with life satisfaction and perceived social support. Incremental validity: The authors used first-order latent-variable regression analysis to determine whether the EPS predicted psychosocial adjustment outcomes over and above the Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale and the Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale. The latent-variable regression model fit the data well, SB-ML chi squared(462, N = 1,270) = 1,975.60, RMSE = .053, SRM = .047, CF = .98, NNFI = .98."
## [212] "The correlation between the ECBI IS and the SDQ Total difficulties scores was 0.68 (N = 442, p < 0.001). The correlation between the ECBI and the SDQ emotional problems scale was 0.38 (N = 442, p < 0.001). The correlations between the total IS scores of the 36 and the 22-item versions was 0.97. The correlations were also high between the 36-item IS total scores and the subscales of the 22-item version (ODBTA = 0.90, InattB = 0.75 and CPB = 0.73."
## [213] "In the development sample (n = 257), the observed C-ACT score ranged from 6 to 27. No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Multitrait analysis showed that the item convergent validity of the C-ACT score was good (Pearson item-scale correlation corrected for overlap; range, 0.41-0.68). The concurrent correlations between the C-ACT score and the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ; Juniper, et al., 1996) and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ; Juniper, et al., 1996) domains were moderate to strong (0.47 and 0.68, respectively). The results of the construct validity analyses were similar in the subgroups of children 4 to 8 years of age and in children 9 to 11 years of age (data not shown)."
## [214] "Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the total scores of the HEWSE scale with three related measures: the Eating Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES; Glynn & Ruderman, 1986), the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), and the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS; Stice, Telch, & Rizvi, 2000). Results revealed a moderate, negative correlation (r = −.37, p < .01) between the ESES and the HEWSE scale suggesting that an individual with low healthy eating self-efficacy will be more likely to overeat in various situations. A moderate positive correlation (r = .32, p < .01) was found between the HEWSE scale and the general SE scale. In the EDDS, correlation between BMI and total scores for the HEWSE scale was negative (N=125, r= −.23, p < .01)."
## [215] "Boys were grouped according to whether their p(aversive) and p(aggression|aversive) z scores were lower than 0 or 0 and greater. The groups were low aversive-low response (n = 71), low aversive-high response (n = 28), high aversive-low response (n = 32), and high aversive-high response (n = 84). The sample sizes reflect the fact that p(aversive) and p(aggression|aversive) were correlated (r = .59)."
## [216] "Validity: Bivariate correlations were computed between the AFSEQ and self-report inventories. AFSEQ total scores were significantly, positively correlated with scores on the Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI; Beck et al. 1979) (r = .28, p = .03, n = 63), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1966) (r = .31, p = .01, n = 64), and the Inventory of Cognitive Distortions (ICD; Yurica, 2002) (r = .52, p<.0001, n = 60). When BDI-II scores (without item nine assessing suicidal thoughts) were included in a multiple regression model, AFSEQ total scores were no longer significantly related to SSI scores [β = .20, t(60) = 1.60, p = .12]."
## [217] "For the concurrent validity, application of analysis of variance yielded a test statistic [F(2,68) = 50.28] significant well beyond the .001 level. The distribution departed from normal (W= .90, p < .05) but differences between the samples with respect to variability were not significant [Levene's Test: (F(2, 68) = 2.84, p > .05]. Application of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance confirmed that there was a significant effect [H(2, N=71) = 37.66; p <.001). Application of Tukey's (HSD) test showed that the mean of the Anxious group was significantly higher than that of either the Neither group (p <.001) or the Student group (p <.001). For the convergent validity, a correlation of .88 was obtained between the BAI scores and the anxiety rating scale scores."
## [218] "Concurrent validity: Application of analysis of variance yielded a test statistic [F(2,76) = 94.06] significant well beyond the .001 level. The distribution departed from normal and there were significant differences between the samples with respect to variability [Levene's Test: F(2, 76) = 8.46, p < .001]. However, application of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance confirmed that there was a significant effect [H(2, N=79) = 51.07; p <.001)]. Application of Tukey's (HSD) showed that the mean of the Depressed group was significantly higher than that of both the Neither group (p <.001) and the Student group (p <.001). These findings therefore indicate that, in accordance with prediction, the XBDI-II scores of the Depressed group were significantly higher than those of the Neither and Student groups. Convergent validity: A correlation of .91 was obtained between BDI-II scores and depression rating scale scores."
## [219] "To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, it was sent to a group of eight referees, including university faculty members, early childhood professionals, and consultants from the National Council for Family Affairs in Jordan. Taking their comments into consideration, changes in the wording of a few items were made. The instrument was also field-tested with a number of randomly selected fathers (N = 25) and the changes were incorporated into the developed instrument."
## [220] "For construct validity, forced choice task: participants agreed, t(34)=16.43, p < .001, d=4.92 [3.94, 5.90], when they disagreed, t(33)= −5.60, p<.001, d=–1.37 [–1.92, 0.83]. The results of the other task: Participants who endorse inherence-based explanations (M=7.40, SD=1.08) than who endorse extrinsic explanations (M = 5.23, SD = 1.65), t(34) = 6.70, p < .001, d=1.56 [1.00, 2.11]. This difference held up for each of the 15 items, ts(34) > 2.86, ps≤.007. For discriminant validity, the models of the Haslam scale and the Inherence Heuristic Scale were compared: change in chi square(change in df = 1, N=230) = 8.08, p=.005. The default model (SRMR = .05, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .053) demonstrated better fit than the constrained model (SRMR = .07, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .055). The two correlation coefficients were z = 2.28, p = .025 (using Lee & Preacher’s, 2013, test for dependent correlations; see also Steiger, 1980) for the Inherence Heuristic Scale and a common essentialism scale."
## [221] "Construct Validity: For convergent validity, a robust statistically significant positive correlation between the total scores of the two measures (r = .422, p < .001, n = 667), as well as between each of the PBQ-SR items and PDEQ total score was observed. For discriminant validity, the PBQ-SR did not correlate with PANAS-P total score at all (r = .008, p = .846, n = 661). In the sample without prior deployment, PBQ-SR even showed a slight negative discriminant correlation to the PANAS-P, similarly to the PDEQ, confirming that the two scales are both equally unrelated to a conceptually different measure such the PANAS-P Scale. Concurrent Validity: Concurrent validity was measured by exploring the relation of the PBQ-SR total score to several scales assessing general anxiety, depression, negative affect, lower general health and posttraumatic symptoms after deployment and their changes over time, showing significant correlations."
## [222] "For convergent validity, the correlation between the SRS-A and PARS scores was(n =14, 12 ASD, 2 non-ASD, r =0.62, p = .019). The correlation between the SRS-A and the ADOS module 4 scores was (37 ASD, r =0.34, p = .037). The correlation between the SRS-A and AQ-J scores (n =76, men 52.6%; 33 ASD, 43 non-ASD; mean age ± SD [range], 35.5 ± 11.4 [20–59] years) was significant but weak (r =0.25, p = .030). For divergent validity, for the available IQ data (n =44), the SRS-A score did not significantly correlate with IQ (r = −0.09, ns). For discriminative validity, the ASD group scored significantly higher than the non- ASD group (p < .001, d =1.07)."
## [223] "Convergent and discriminant construct validity: Pearson’s correlations between this scale and measures of body image and QOL were computed. All the World Health Organization Quality of Life – bref (WHOQOL; (WHOQOL Group, 1998a) domains were analysed, as well as the specific facet of body image, included in the psychological domain. The discriminant validity of the BIS was further assessed by comparing the BIS scores of patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 95) and those who underwent breast- conserving surgery (BCS) (n = 51). Support for the convergent validity of the scale was demonstrated by associations with a large effect size (>.50) between the BIS and the body shame subscale, the Derriford Appearance Scale 24 (DAS24; Carr et al., 2005) and the body image facet of WHOQOL. The discriminant validity of the BIS was further assessed by comparing the BIS scores of patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 95) and those who underwent BCS (n = 51)."
## [224] "Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on another half of the data (n = 666) to confirm the goodness of fit of the previously identified one-factor model. The results of CFA showed a good model fit: χ2 = 18.00, df = 5, p b .003, CFI = .98, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .03. Each item has acceptable factor loadings on the model (.57, .41, .67, .57, .70) and all of the factor loadings were significant (p < .001). Thus, the one-factor model was confirmed by the CFA. Furthermore, the MWQ was inversely correlated with the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) (r=−.31, p b .001), which indicated that the criterion-related validity of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire--Chinese Version was adequate."
## [225] "Convergent validity: The global fit indices supported the measure's convergent validity (χ2 = 1,045.7; df = 487; RMSEA = 0.06 ; SRMR = 0.07; GFI = 0.88; AGFI = 0.84; NFI = 0.90; NNFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.94; n = 360 P-Value = 0.00000). Discriminant validity: As the square root of the average variance extracted of each construct was greater than the correlations between the variables, all constructs demonstrated discriminant validity."
## [226] "Predictive Validity: The results of the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the model fit (χ2 [461, N = 995] = 1925.88, p < .001, IFI = .98, CFI = .98, GFI = .79, RMSEA = .084) was excellent between the proposed model and the observed data."
## [227] "The correlations between the Global Social Responsibility scale and related behavioral measures were in expected directions and significant. The correlation with a self-report log of hours of volunteering to peace and ecology was .38. The correlation with a self-report measure of financial contributions, a log of percent of financial contributions, was .39. The correlation with a rating of social activism was .52 for the mixed group only (n = 148) and .69 for the total sample (N = 219)."
## [228] "Content/Construct Validity: Content and construct validity were established through the work of an expert panel. Known-Groups Validity: A Kruskall-Wallis W test indicated that the three groups (students with known acquired brain injuries, students with special education needs, and typical students) differed significantly [X2 (2, N = 186) = 89.50, P < .001]."
## [229] "Construct validity was supported by a significant correlation between years since HIV diagnosis and greater HIV treatment knowledge among HIV-positive patients (n= 130, r= 0.21, p<0.05) and among the combined sample of HIV-positive and HIVHCV co-infected patients (n =152, r =0.23, p<0.01). Criterion (concurrent) validity of the HIV Treatment Knowledge Scale was demonstrated by its significant and positive correlation with the Brief HIV Knowledge Questionnaire (Carey & Schroder, 2002) in all samples combined (n =346, r= 0.73, p<0.001)."
## [230] "For the O-inquiry, the face validity was reviewed by two science educators and the readability of wording was revised and confirmed by two experienced elementary school teachers. Two pilot tests were conducted to assess reliability, difficulty index, and discrimination index of the instrument. After the first pilot test (N = 83), the items with high difficulty index values (i.e., too easy) were revised. Consequently, the second pilot test (N = 75) results revealed that the difficulty indices ranged from .21 to .54. In addition, the discrimination indices ranged from .29 to .71. Based on Ebel's (1979) criteria, 6 out of the 7 items' discrimination indices fall in the range of either good or excellent (i.e., .36-.71), but only one item belongs to the criteria of acceptable. Following pilot testing of the M-inquiry, 4 items with either low discrimination index or inappropriate difficult index (i.e., too high or too low index values) were revised accordingly."
## [231] "The Delphi panel member’s written comments, recommendations and item relevance ratings established PCECAT v. 4 content validity for all 3 domains. Face validity was established when none of the item statements in these 3 domains were considered to be irrelevant by a substantial proportion (≥ 33.3%) of the Delphi panel members and 15 aged-care senior nurses and managers. Convergent validity was established for Domain 3 (Physical Layout and Design) when these item scores vs. Environmental Audit Tool (EAT; Fleming, 2011) scores were compared for 35 randomly selected aged-care homes (n = 35/131 = 26.7%). Correlations were run between the Domain 3 scores for these 35 homes and the EAT scores (total and 10 subscale scores). Domain 3 scores had statistically significant positive correlations with the total EAT score (r = 0.46, p = .005) and 4 of the subscale scores (Safety r = .35, p < .05; Stimulus Reduction r = .68, Wandering r = .44, and Familiarity r = .46, each p < .01)."
## [232] "To examine construct validity, a subset of women (n = 145) who were bilingual were asked to complete both the English and Korean tests 1 week apart. Results of the Korean and English BULIT-R were significantly correlated (r = .94, p = .0001). The results of the Korean BULIT-R with the results of the Bulimia subscale of the Korean EDI-2 showed the two tests shared a significant correlation (r = .78,p = .001)."
## [233] "Convergent and discriminant validity: The factorial structure in Polish adult participants (n = 857) was very similar to the one previously found in other samples; AMAS scores correlated moderately in expected directions with state and trait anxiety, self-assessed math achievement and skill as well temperamental traits of emotional reactivity, briskness, endurance, and perseverance"
## [234] "Construct validity: The highest correlation was found between fantasy and CA, r = 0.461, p < 0.001 (n = 267), and correlations between diversion and social interaction were also significant: r = .255, p < 0.001 (n = 269), and r = 0.228, p < 0.001 (n = 269), respectively. Significant correlations were also found with the other motivations: arousal, r = 0.408 (n = 267); challenge, r = 0.352 (n = 266); and competition, r = 0.226 (n = 268), each at p < 0.001. The correlation between CA and enjoyment for role-playing video game (RPG) players was significant (r = 0.228, p = 0.001, n = 194), as was the correlation with playing time, calculated as total minutes per month spent playing (r = 0.169, p = 0.009, n = 193). A significant correlation between CA and game addiction using Tejeiro and Moran’s game addiction scale (2002) with r = 0.358, p < 0.001 for all respondents (n = 256) and r = 0.372, p 0.001 for RPG gamers (n = 185)."
## [235] "Discriminant validity of factors was tested using previously used indices as a measure of overall fit. Results indicated that the model fit the data well χ2(305, n= 313)=982.77, p<0.05; χ2/df=3.2, RMSEA=0.081 (1-RMSEA=0.92), NFI=0.92, CFI=0.95, RMR=0.05, GFI=0.80. Convergent validity was tested by correlating the PIQ subscales’ mean scores with the LISI total scores. Results indicated that a moderate amount of shared variance was observed (0.29–0.61) between PIQ and LISI measured constructs."
## [236] "Cognitive interviews (n = 80) with caregivers of varied socioeconomic strata informed revisions that demonstrated face and content validity."
## [237] "The sensitivity of the Y-OQ-12 was 0.84, with a specificity of 0.82. Concurrent validity was evaluated based on the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC; Jellinek & Murphy, 1990) and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-Present State (DISC-PS; Schaffer et al., 2000). A phi coefficient was used to assess the association between caseness determined by the Y-OQ-12 and caseness determined by the PSC. The total scores of the Y-OQ-12 and the PSC were highly correlated (r = 0.86; p < 0.001), as were their case classification (0.63; p < 0.001), with only one case classified as negative on the Y-OQ-12 and positive on the PSC. The point-biserial correlation showed a moderate yet significant correlation between the Y-OQ- 12 and the DISC-PS (r = 0.44, p = 0.001, n = 56), with a lower non-significant correlation evident between the PSC and the DISC-PS (r = 0.38, p < 0.05, n = 56)."
## [238] "There were significant positive correlations between nightmare frequency and NEQ Physical Effect (n=312, r=0.21), Negative Emotion (0.26), Meaning Interpretation (0.27) and Horrible Stimulation (0.26) factors."
## [239] "There was a moderate positive relationship between perceived organizational autonomy and the measure of perceived participation of the public relations department in organizational decision making (r=0.34, n=116). This relationship was significant at the p<0.001 level."
## [240] "Content Validity: Content validity was determined using think-aloud interviewing and probing with a focus group (N = 8)."
## [241] "Predictive Validity: scale predicted nonsexual violent, any violent, and general recidivism significantly better than Static-99R (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) or Static-2002R total scores in an aggregated sample of 3,536 adult male sex offenders. Convergent Validity: The scale was found to be highly correlated with other risk assessment tools for general recidivism and the PCL-R. Discriminant Validity: The general criminality factor was not significantly correlated with any of the variables that it was not expected to be correlated with, though there was a small negative correlation with sexual deviancy, r = −.25, n = 275."
## [242] "The preliminary instrument was sent to a panel of experts (n=5) for content validity. The panel consisted of two university professors and F-1 event marketers in Shanghai. The panel was asked to evaluate the relevance, clarity, and representativeness of the items. The panel agreed to retain all 31 items that were purported to measure service quality attributes related to F-1 events in Shanghai."
## [243] "Content Validity: Content validity was built through cognitive interviews conducted with child protection education advisors and a key member of a principal professional association (n = 4). Construct Validity: The authors noted that the scale displayed construct validity in preliminary testing."
## [244] "The Rational scale and the Experiential scale were not significantly correlated, indicating independency (r=.16, p<.10, n=2,245). The slight positive relation (p<.10) between the Rational and Experiential main scales can be attributed solely to the relation of the Imagination subscale with the Rational scale (r=.18, p<.01), suggesting that the Imagination subscale may include a slightly rational component, supporting evidence of discriminant validity. Gender-corrected correlations indicated that the experiential subscales were moderately interrelated (rs5.31–.39, ps .001), indicating that they measure semi-independent components of a more general thinking style. Significant relations of an experiential thinking style with interpersonal relationships and of a rational thinking style with adjustment were also found."
## [245] "Content validity for the ACSA was established through the adoption of items from validated instruments. Criterion-related validity was measured by assessing validity coefficients between the ACSA, the intensity of amphetamine use, and the severity of amphetamine dependence. The ACSA discriminated between \"low-dose\" and \"high-dose\" users, indicating discriminant validity. In inpatients (n = 63), ACSA scores declined significantly over time, while higher scores in inpatient treatment dropouts indicated predictive validity."
## [246] "Face Validity: Face validity of the initial set of items was determined by an independent group of active selfie posters (n = 10). Items that were irrelevant or too similar to other items were removed."
## [247] "Content Validity: A small pilot study (n = 7) was conducted to maximize the content-related validity of the instrument."
## [248] "Convergent Validity: The overall score on the SAQOL-39NL correlated with HRQL after stroke. A moderate correlation was found (Pearson’s r = 0.45, p < 0.005). Internal Validity: Inter-correlations between domains were low-moderate (0.12–0.36). Inter-correlations between overall and domain scores were good and varied from 0.58 to 0.73. Construct Validity: The SAQOL-39NL was acceptable (no missing data; no floor or ceiling effects) to people with chronic aphasia (n = 47)."
## [249] "Results of factor analyses supported the construct validity. To evaluate the concurrent validity of STSS-G scores, a structural equation model was estimated on a subset of the original sample whereby latent variables representing existing measures of stereotype threat and science identity were regressed on the latent social identity and identity threat variables. Results indicated that the model fit the data well, chi squared(413, N = 315) = 715.32, p = .000, CFI = .967, RMSEA = .048 (90% CI: .042, .054), TLI = .963, WRMR = .941. The differential validity of the STSS-G was also supported, given that STSS-G was found to classify individuals into five latent subgroups that distinguished them in terms of their vulnerabilities and affective responses to threatening stereotypes."
## [250] "The Privacy Concern scale correlates significantly with General Caution (r = .333, n = 435, p < .0005) but not strongly with the Technical Protection factor (r = .094, n = 425, p = .053). These intercorrelations show each scale measures their respective construct, thus supporting validity. Results also showed positive and significant correlations of Privacy Concern, General Caution, and Technical Protection with the Westin Privacy segmentation (Harris and Associates, Inc. & Westin, 1998) and Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC; Malhotra et al., 2004), supporting construct validity."
## [251] "The Panic Disorder Severity Scale total score was correlated significantly with the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule, Revised (ADIS-R; Di Nardo & Barlow, 1988) clinical severity rating of panic disorder (r= 0.55, N=145, p<0.001). The sensitivity to change of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale was analyzed by using a time-by-group analysis of variance. Both of the main effects and the interaction effect were statistically significant (group: F=11.08, df= 1, 87, p<0.001; time: F=57.15, df=1, 87, p<0.001; interaction: F=41.36, df=1, 87, p<0.001)."
## [252] "The measures of people’s ability ranged from 6.76 to −6.56 logits. In only two (3%) of the 60 assessments were the goodness-of-fit statistics above the acceptable values. Furthermore, the AHA was found to discriminate effectively between children with different levels of assisting hand function, as shown by the separation value for persons of 6.16 demonstrating the number of ability levels it is possible to distinguish in this test. Age was not correlated with assisting hand performance ability in a group of children with unilateral impairments (Pearson’s r=0.13) but in a group with non-disabled children (which was, however, very small, n=8) an age relationship seemed to exist (Spearman’s r=0.7, p=0.05). The difficulty of the test items appeared to match the ability of the persons well and was found to be appropriate for the targeted group of people."
## [253] "CFA was performed to test the validity of the Group Process Scale using LISREL 8.8. The analysis revealed a good fit for the model, chi-squared(84, N = 125) = 119.88, p < .01; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.06; Non-Normed Fit Index = 0.95; Comparative Fit Index = 0.96."
## [254] "S-MARE scores pre- and post- relaxation instruction were significantly correlated with the Emotional Relaxation Scale (Tokuda, 2011; r = .446) and with State Anxiety (r = −.531). There was also a significant correlation between the amplitude of the high frequency component of heart rate variability during relaxation instruction and physiological tension scores on the S-MARE (r = .456-.474, N = 24)."
## [255] "Convergent and Discriminant Validity: As for convergent and discriminant validity, the two CI scales were correlated with attitudes toward animals and uncorrelated with social desirability, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism (N = 701). Predictive Validity: Also, Carnistic Defense predicted meat consumption, while Carnistic Domination was a significant predictor of having slaughtered an animal (N = 478)."
## [256] "SSIS-RS-C scale domains and subscale scores of the typically developing and developmental disabilities groups were significantly different. Only one subscale, Assertion, showed no significant difference between the two groups. The scores for the Hong Kong sample (n = 567) derived from the use of the SSIS-RS-C were compared to the normative sample scores from the American version of the SSIS-RS. It was found that there were statistically significant differences on five out of the seven SSIS-RS-C Social Skill subscales for children aged 5–12 years and on four out of the seven SSIS-RS-C Social Skills subscales for the adolescent group (aged 13–18 years). Also, there were statistically significant differences between the American and Hong Kong samples on all of the SSIS-RS-C Problem Behavior scale scores."
## [257] "Child molesters’ responses (n = 35) were not significantly different from nonsex offenders (n = 21) on an implicit measure of sexual interest in children (Sexual Attraction to Children Implicit Association Test [SAC-IAT] d = 0.44, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.99])."
## [258] "The content validity of the draft tool was reviewed by an expert panel (n = 5) comprising experienced RN1/A nurses working across acute hospital settings, RN5 (learning disability nurses) and nurse educators."
## [259] "The IS was not significantly correlated with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS; Taylor, 1953) (r = -.075; N = 240) and r between the IS and a measure of mental ability was -.019. The IS did show significant relationships with lack of objectivity and emotional instability."
## [260] "Convergent Validity: Significant correlations (0.22 to 0.74) were found with convergent measures among general (n = 871) and psychiatric samples (n = 38). Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Validity: The cutoff score of 41 produced good sensitivity in this psychiatric inpatient sample (88% of actual attempters were identified as suicide attempters) and moderate specificity (47% of non-attempters were identified as such). The positive and negative predictive values were .43 and .88, respectively."
## [261] "Study 2 (n = 178) yielded significant associations between the scale and young drivers’ perception of their parents as involved, encouraging autonomy, and providing warmth; Study 3 (n = 117) revealed significant associations between the scale and youngsters’ reported proneness to take risks while driving, as well as significant associations between the factors and various dimensions of family functioning; and Study 4 (n = 156) found associations between the FCRSS factors and both driving styles (risky, angry, anxious, careful) and family cohesion and adaptability."
## [262] "Validity was confirmed in a pilot study with a small sample (n=8)."
## [263] "Construct validity: The mean weighted ADDQoL score correlated significantly with the number of reported complications (Spearman r = –0.2141, n = 141 and p < 0.005) indicating greater negative impact of diabetes on QoL in people with more reported complications. Similar relationships were observed when ADDQoL scores were correlated with the variable ‘actual complications’, where the few reports of complications not recognized as complications of diabetes were rescored as other illnesses and the few reports of other illnesses known to be complications of diabetes were rescored as complications (r = –0.2289, n = 140 and p < 0.003). Perceptions of hypoglycaemia were also significantly associated with impaired QoL (r = –0.3237, n = 90 and p < 0.001)."
## [264] "Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Validity: Results in a second sample (n = 325) indicated that each test form presented overall satisfactory classification accuracy in identifying at-risk readers with a criterion of 0.80 to set the sensitivity levels. The specificity rates were very low, ranging between 0.397 and 0.577 in grades 2 to 4. However, in grade 1, the specificity rate nearly reached the recommended value of 0.80."
## [265] "Convergent validity: Convergent validity was determined by comparing the CBTS-CYP against the CTS-R. In one study (n = 12 raters) Pearson correlation coefficients between the CBTS-CYP process and CTS-R general scores (r = .98, p < .001), CBTS-CYP method and CTS-R specific scores (r = .91, p < .0001) and total scores (r = .98, p < .0001) were very high. Similarly, in the second study (n = 48 session recordings) correlations between process and general scores (r = .79, p < .0001), method and specific skills (r = .91, p < .0001) and total scores (r = .93, p < .0001) were again very high, suggesting that the two measures are highly correlated. Discriminative ability: Using the total score and single item pass-fail criteria, the CBTS-CYP compared well with the CTS-R in discriminative ability. Analysis of changes in competence of 18 trainees as they progressed through training showed that competence increased by approximately eight points on both the CTS-R and CBTS-CYP."
## [266] "Convergent Validity: Using Cohen's (1988) guidelines, Openness to CIH correlated with the CAMBI total scale (r = .534 p < .000, n = 171); Intentional practices also correlated with the CAMBI total scale (r = .549, p < .000, n = 171); and the total scale had a large significant correlation with the CAMBI (r = .584, p < .000, n = 171). Discriminant Validity: Discriminant validity was examined by assessing the relationship between interprofessionalism and the CIHAP total scale (r = .203, p = .006, n = 179), the Openness to CIH subscale (r = .208, p = .005, n = 179), and the Intentional practices subscale (r = .224, p = .003, n = 179)."
## [267] "A significant correlation with a national GP knowledge test (r = 0.33) showed the instrument to be a valid instrument. The instrument proved feasible with coverage of 24% (N = 3082) of reasons for encounter presented to GP trainees."
## [268] "To investigate the criterion validity of the PhoPhiKat-9, the authors utilized the RTSqr in the Validation Sample 1. applied the cut-off equivalent for the short form (no gelotophobia ≤ 2.67, n = 203; gelotophobia >2.67, n = 43 individuals) for gelotophobia and computed two repeated measures ANOVAs (for the ridicule and teasing scenarios), with gelotophobia group (no gelotophobia vs. gelotophobia) as factor, the eight emotion ratings as repeated measures, and the intensity of emotion as dependent variable. For the ridicule scenarios, results showed that both main effects for type of emotion and gelotophobia group were significant."
## [269] "Convergent Validity: Convergent validity of the MOHAB was tested using observations (N = 27, all Dutch). The floor structure and baby equipment observed matched parental reports in most cases indicating satisfactory validity of these reports. The eight milestones included in both the MOHAB and the AIMS (e.g., sit without support) were compared. Overall percentage of agreement was 95%, indicating that parental reports were valid. Rolling from prone to supine was the only milestone with a lower percentage of agreement (74%). Face Validity: Face validity was evaluated by eight experts (three Dutch, four Israeli and one American) who were researchers in the field of parental beliefs and/or motor development or clinicians in the field of early motor development. All experts identified the constructs measured and found the selection of items to be sufficiently comprehensive and complete, indicating good face validity."
## [270] "Convergent Validity: Participants classified as secure (n = 21) scored significantly different than other participants on Availability (p = .031), the 8 participants classified as preoccupied had significantly different scores on the AAQ scale of Angry Distress (p = .011), and participants classified as dismissing (n = 35) scored significantly different on the scale Goal-Corrected Partnership (p = .010)."
## [271] "Construct Validity: Compared to the non-alcohol cue session, the Shortened-DAQ total score was significantly greater both in the alcohol cue session (21.8 vs 16.8; t(116)=−8.6; p < 0.001) as well as the Alcohol priming session (20.8 vs 16.1; t(96)= −5.6; p < 0.001). Convergent/Divergent Validity: The Pearson correlations between Shortened-DAQ total score and VAS craving item were significant both in the Non-alcohol cue session (r = 0.759; p < 0.001), the Alcohol cue session (r = 0.792; p < 0.001) and in the priming session (r= 0.771; p < 0.001). In a subset of patients (n=56; Khemiri et al., 2015) Pearson correlations between Shortened-DAQ and VAS craving were highly significant. Furthermore, the Shortened-DAQ correlated to a lesser degree with VAS Anxiety and VAS arousal indicating acceptable divergent validity, even though the correlation with VAS anxiety was also statistically significant."
## [272] "The MSCQ demonstrated a significant correlation with an established rating scale for automotive seating comfort; the overall comfort rating in MSCQ and discomfort rating for the automotive seating comfort measure for five motorcycles was r = −0.765 (p < .05, n = 15), which is statistically significant. The ratings of overall comfort from the MSCQ were compared with the dimensions of the motorcycle related to ergonomics showed that there was a significant correlation between the dimensions seat width (p < .01) and comfort as well as seat to foot peg (Y – vertical distance) (p < .05) and comfort, indicating that these are important parameters in motorcycle design for comfort."
## [273] "Construct validity: Analyses of variance of the scores from three groups were statistically significantly different, with mean group scores in the predicted direction: college students lowest, general psychiatric patients higher, and phobics highest. A Scheffé test showed phobics to be significantly higher than the other two groups in these samples. Concurrent validity: College students' annihilation scale scores were correlated with their responses to the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. This comparison (n = 205) yielded a product-moment r of .69 with trait anxiety and .56 with state anxiety. A more recent study reported a Pearson r of .63 between the Hurvich Experience Inventory and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, with n of 218 (Jantzen, 1992)."
## [274] "The metric for each scale was established by fixing the coefficient for one indicator to 1.00 for each factor. Other than these fixed loadings, each item evidenced highly significant t-values, suggesting convergent validity. Results indicated none of the confidence intervals surrounding the factor correlations contain “1.00;” therefore, discriminant validity is suggested. Nomological validity: The higher order dimensions of aesthetic appeal, customer “return on investment,” playfulness and service excellence were specified as predictors of retail preference and patronage intent in this test of nomological validity. The structural model predicting Internet preference and patronage intent from dimensions of value produced results that indicate that this model fits the data well [x² = 477.86 (df.=267); p = .000; RMSEA = 0.061; CFI = 0.93; n = 213]. Among Internet shoppers, customer return on investment was significant in predicting Internet shopping preference."
## [275] "The ESQOL's criterion validity was examined in reference to the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) generic core scale (Varni et al., 1999). Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the total scale (n = 49) was .43 (p < .002). Content validity was assessed via content validity index scores."
## [276] "Kruskal-Wallis comparison across the different groups with pair-wise comparisons was highly significant: χ² of 87.7 (N = 204, df = 5, p < 0.0001) . Spearman rank-order correlations were calculated between each item and item-corrected score totals and were all significant at p < 0.001 except for item 17. There was a significant negative correlation between CDC score and age (Spearman’s rho = 0.32; p = 0.002; n = 88) among non-clinical subjects. The same relationship was not valid for DID and DDNOS groups. The scores of non-dissociative diagnostic groups as a whole had a mild negative but non-significant correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.22; p = 0.054; n = 79). There was no significant correlation between CDC scores and socioeconomic status, age and education of parents, and number of siblings. There were no significant gender differences in CDC scores in the participants overall and in any subgroup."
## [277] "Correlations between the three factors of the Czech version of NAQ-R and the SUPSO scales (P – pohoda, A – činorodost, O - impulzivnost, N - napětí, D - deprese, U - úzkost, S - sklíčenost) and were all significant (Significance α <0,05; N = 710)."
## [278] "The correlations between the CCHN LSI and other indicators of stress were published within a broader description of the stress indicators used by CCHN (Dunkel Schetter et al., 2013), and provides preliminary evidence of convergent validity. In the full CCHN T2 sample (N=1656), the composite LSI score was significantly correlated with perceived stress at the earlier T1 assessment one month after birth (r=.28, CI=0.23, 0.33) and concurrently as measured at T2 six months after birth (r=.37, CI=0.33, 0.41). To assess the CCHN LSI's concurrent validity, correlations were calculated between overall domain scores and measures of depressive symptoms, post-traumatic stress symptoms, GAD diagnosis, and allostatic load. All domain ratings were significantly associated with all 3 indicators of mental health, with the exception of co-parenting with a new partner, which was completed by only a small minority of participants. Correlation coefficients ranged from .09 to .36."
## [279] "Content Validity: Content experts were in agreement that the overall HOME-Rx instrument was valid for measuring older adult medication management (S-CVI = .95). Older adult participants (n = 5) unanimously reported that the HOME-Rx was relevant, acceptable, and easy to understand. Face Validity: The authors of the assessment determined that the HOME--Rx had high face validity to capture the complex construct of medication management."
## [280] "Convergent validity of each KCCQ domain was documented by comparison with available criterion standards (r = 0.46 to 0.74; p < 0.001 for all). Among those with stable CHF who remained stable by predefined criteria (n = 39), minimal changes in KCCQ domains were detected over three months of observation (mean change = 0.8 to 4.0 points, p = NS for all). In contrast, large changes in score were observed among patients whose decompensated CHF improved three months later (n = 39; mean change = 15.4 to 40.4 points, p < 0.01 for all). The sensitivity of the KCCQ was substantially greater than that of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure and the SF-36 questionnaires."
## [281] "When imposing the data structure obtained from the first 3 samples (n = 233, n = 139, n = 94) on the new data (n = 1000) by confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that at least minimum cultural comparability exists for all scales."
## [282] "Correlations with the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989) indicated good convergent validity for the CAQ. Results indicated positive correlations between the Academic/Educational subscale scores, r = .65, (n = 51, p < .001); the Social/ Relational subscale scores, r = .67 (n = 51, p < .001); and the Emotional/Psychological subscale scores, r = .69 (n = 51, p < .001)."
## [283] "Convergent Validity: Dysfunctional posttraumatic cognitions correlated significantly with posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS; r = .62), depression (r = .71), and anxiety (r = .67). Discriminant Validity: Both the total and sub-scale scores were able to discriminate between participants with PTSD (n = 107) and those without PTSD (n = 116)."
## [284] "Construct validity was studied by means of analysis of the correlations between the scale dimensions and with other, theoretically related, constructs. This was calculated with the sample of employees (N=352). As expected, bullying and its dimensions were positively correlated with health problems and perceived stress. The highest correlations were reached with emotional exhaustion, lack of energy, and physical discomfort, and the highest correlation of all was between perceived stress and the global bullying score (r=.62, p<.01)."
## [285] "Concurrent validity: The association between GSES and HADS-A (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) was non-significant (r = 0.19, P > 0.1, NS). Discriminant validity: The ability of GSES to discriminate insomnia patients (n = 89) from good sleepers (n = 102) was investigated. The GSES readily discriminated the groups (t = -15.27, d.f. = 189, P < 0.0001). Given the significant association between GSES and age, to be conservative discriminant validity between groups was considered using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with age as covariate. GSES still readily discriminated the groups, with age partialled out [F(1,182) = 228.52, P < 0.0001]. Specificity and sensitivity: A cut-off score of 2 correctly identified 93.3% of insomnia patients and 87.3% of good sleepers. Using 3 as the cutoff, 82.2% of insomnia patients and 92.2% of good sleepers were correctly identified. Positive predictive and likelihood ratios were high, suggesting GSES predicts the presence of insomnia well."
## [286] "The correlation between PHASE-20 ( Hedström, Lidström, & Hulter Åsberg, 2009) and PHASE-Proxy (n = 30) was rs = 0.65 (p < 0.01), indicating criterion validity as the two scales appear to measure the same construct."
## [287] "PDI scores of a sample of former inpatients (n = 37) were significantly higher that former outpatients (n = 36) who responded to a follow-up questionnaire. These findings support the validity of the PDI."
## [288] "The survey was assessed for clarity and content validity by an expert panel (n = 8) including RTs, ROMPs and researchers (Imle & Atwood, 1988; Monterosso, Kristjanson, & Dadd, 2006). Items not meeting the minimum criterion for agreement (disagreement of more than one expert) were adapted or deleted according to feedback received and in consultation with panel members (Lynn, 1986)."
## [289] "Supporting the taxonomy’s validity, the dimensional ratings were consistently associated with social distance and yielded clusters for uniting stigmatized statuses that shared dimensional features. Correlations (r) with the Social Distance Scale (Link et al., 1987) ranged between -.09 and .87 across the 6 dimensions. The authors conducted a sensitivity analysis using ANCOVA to test stigma cluster membership as a correlate of health, controlling for whether each participants’ primary stigma was health- (n=423) or non–health related (n=556). Results indicated those with health-related stigmas reported greater health impairments than those without health-related stigmas (F=12.94, p<.001). However, the omnibus test of cluster membership on health was significant (F=5.49, p<.001), indicating that stigma cluster membership still significantly accounted for participant health factor scores when controlling for the health-related nature of the stigma."
## [290] "Statistically significant correlations were found between the ESES and Generalised Self Efficacy Scale (GSE; Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992) (Spearman RHO = .316; p < .05; n = 53, 2-sided), supporting construct validity."
## [291] "The correlation between the parental Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS; Sparrow et al. 2006) and child developmental AFEQ subtotal at baseline was r = − 0.478 (p < .001, n = 143), at endpoint was r = − 0.575 (p < .001, n = 134), and at follow-up was r = − 0.710 (p < .001, n = 102), indicating a moderate to strong association between the two measures at each of the three time-points and supporting external criterion validity. A further test of the convergent validity of the AFEQ was the analysis of the association of the AFEQ parent domain and well-established measures of adult mental health—the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; Goldberg 1992)—and wellbeing—the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al. 2007), collected during the follow-up phase. A significant correlation with these measures suggested that the newly developed domain was tapping a construct that is linked to parental mental health and wellbeing."
## [292] "Face Validity: To ensure face validity, the questionnaire was based on a comprehensive review of literature and survey items from other studies with school personnel regarding violence prevention in schools (Dake et al. 2004; Khubchandani et al. 2013; Price et al. 2016; Vagi et al. 2013). Content Validity: To establish content validity, the instrument was mailed for review to a panel of published experts (n=9) in the areas of school health, pediatrics, and survey research as well as school personnel (n=3). After the expert review, changes were made to the instrument (wording changes and deleting or adding items) to ensure that valid measures regarding perceptions and practices of high school principals regarding TDV were included."
## [293] "Strong and statistically significant positive relationships were found between the EIS and the measure of general ecological behavior across eight subsamples (median r=.71). Bivariate correlations were calculated between the EIS' first principal component and the secondary components of the general ecological behavior and New Ecological Paradigm scales (Dunlap et al., 2000) across eight subsamples (n=28). No significant relationships were found in any of the eight subsamples, offering support for the discriminant validity of the EIS. Data suggest that Model 1 (AIC=25.3; BIC=46.4) fits= the data better and in a more parsimonious way than Model 2 (AIC=226.4; BIC=247.5) and Model 3 (AIC=175.2; BIC=196.3). The authors found moderately large direct effects leading from ecological worldview (β=.44) and self-transcendent values (β=.37) to ecological identity, which together explained a good deal of the common variance in ecological identity (R²=.49)."
## [294] "A CFA model was conducted to examine construct validity of the DTS. A 2-factor structure supported the hypotheses that distress tolerance can be distinguished from symptoms of distress. The 1-factor model was a poor fit to the data χ² (35, N = 650) = 563.49, p<.001, CFI = .77, RMSEA = .152, WRMR = .094. In contrast, the hypothesized 2-factor model fit the data well, χ² (34, N = 650) = 106.72, p<.001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .057, SRMR = .037. The authors also conducted a SEM, testing the validity of the DTS. The final model fit well, χ² (74, N = 650) = 240.18, p<.001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = .039. There was a significant indirect positive effect of neuroticism on current symptoms via distress tolerance B = 0.19 95% CI [0.14, 0.25]. Conversely, there was a significant indirect inverse effect of extraversion on current symptoms via distress tolerance B = -0.04 95% CI [-0.07, -0.02]."
## [295] "The scale content validity was confirmed by, first, submitting them to the scrutiny of experts and incorporating their suggestions into the scale and, second, through frequency analysis of the scale items. The item score mode was 5.26 in a normal, negatively skewed distribution, supporting construct validity. Pearson correlations between the total mean scores on the CCS-19 and the Spiritual Coping Scale-30 (SCS-30; Corry et al., 2013) were computed for the sample as a whole and for different sub-samples. For the whole sample, the correlation was moderate and positive (r = .378, n = 534, p < .01). The correlation between CCS-19 and SCS-30 was significant for females and for age group 1 (18–30 years) only. The correlation between CCS-19 and SCS-30 was strongest within the Kuwaiti subsample (r = .698, n = 274, p < .01) and within the Muslim sub-sample (r = .698, n = 275, p < .01)."
## [296] "Convergent Validity: The CPTCI exhibited significant correlations in all the measured values at the level of p < .001 with two scales for measuring post-traumatic stress symptoms: the Children’s Revised Impact of Event Scale (CRIES; Smith et al., 2003) and Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; Briere, 1996). Discriminant Validity: For the CPTCI, the high PTSD-risk group (n = 152) and the low PTSD-risk group (n = 85) showed significant differences in various CPTCI scores."
## [297] "Content validity was assessed by the four authors who separately examined the set of items for coverage of the most important aspects of the clinical supervision process. The initial pool of 22 items was scrutinized to identify the possible dimensions they would be assessing and if the most important aspects of each dimension was sufficiently covered. The same process was repeated after item reduction. The proportion of staff with a definitely positive perception of the programme (score≥14) was 41.7% (n=20); the proportion of individuals who expressed dissatisfaction (overall score=0) was 22.9% (n=11). The overall perception score was positively correlated with the value of the general opinion single question about the program (Spearman’s rho=0.79, p<0.001) giving evidence for convergent validity of the CSEQ."
## [298] "Construct validity: The Coping Strategies Scales correlated significantly with the Western scales of coping strategies (OSI-2; Williams & Cooper, 1996) in the hypothesized directions, with Chinese active positive coping correlated significantly with OSI-control coping (r = 0.68, p < 0.001), Chinese social support correlated with OSI-support coping (r = 0.35, p < 0.001), and Chinese hobbies/relaxation with OSI-support coping (r = 0.51, p < 0.001). Supporting criterion validity of the Chinese coping scales, a series of correlational analyses revealed that active positive coping correlated positively with job satisfaction, whereas passive adaptive behavior correlated positively with physical and behavioral symptoms in the full sample (N = 380)."
## [299] "Convergent validity of the APS was determined with College Adjustment Test (Hasan & Kazmi, 2014) (r=.46, p<.01). Discriminant validity of the APS was established with Psychological Resilience Scale (Jawahir & Kazmi, 2013) (r=-.21, p<.01). Content validity of the APS was established through experts’ (campus counsellors and senior educationists) ratings (N=10)."
## [300] "Concurrent validity: In a clinical sample, the DOT was significantly correlated (r = .92) with WAIS-III Block Design scores and was successfully substituted in place of Block Design raw scores without significant change in Performance IQ or Full Scale IQ. Discriminant validity: As expected, there was no correlation between the DOT and the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1993) (r = .03, ns, n = 32), or the state (r = -.02, ns, n = 30) or trait (r = .15, ns, n = 30) components of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970)."
## [301] "The concurrent validity of the QuiLL (v27 assessment) with the Spitzer Quality of Life Index (Spitzer et al., 1981) was also good as there was a strong positive correlation between the two instruments (r = 0.61, n = 63, p < 0.001). For discriminant validity, the comparison between samples in contact with services in London and Essex, and the population survey, showed that subjective well-being was higher in all life domains in the community sample, and the only ones that failed to reach significance were safety, family and living arrangements."
## [302] "Convergent validity was tested by constraining the correlations on all 11 factors to 1. The resulting fit, χ²(H25, AT = 395) = 4477.4, p < .01, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .11, SRMR could not be successfully fitted, indicating a poor fit, and a χ² difference test (p < .001) confirms that the 49 items result from 11 unique dimensions. The factor correlations were constrained at 1, which resulted in χ²(1377,N= 395) = 5750.4, p<.01, TLI = .88, RMSEA=.11, SRMR could not be computed because of missing data. The difference χ² showed the superiority of the former model over the latter at p < .001 thus supporting the divergent validity."
## [303] "All factor loadings as well as structural regressions from the estimated third-order CFA model were all statistically significant with t values ranging from a low of 8.64 to a high of 24.50. These results provide direct evidence of convergent validity of the SBME measure. The variance extracted for each factor was greater than the generally accepted value of .50, supporting the discriminant validity of the SBME measure. A regression analysis found that the SBME index significantly and positively influenced the composite score computed from the mean score of the mall patronage construct. This regression coefficient was .430 (p<.001, N=408) for the calibration sample, .568 (p<.001, N=497) for the validation sample, and .510 for the core sample (p<.001, N=905). Such results give evidence of the predictive validity of the SBME measure."
## [304] "There was no effect of age (as categorized into 4 groups based on interquartile range) on HEHIQ scores. Neither were there any significant gender differences in HEHIQ scores. As predicted, people reporting a chronic illness (n=264) had lower scores on all subscales than others (n=104), and this was significant for all subscales except relationships. Positive correlations between scores on the HEHIQ and on the World Health Organisation Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL BREF; Skevington, Lofty, & O'Connell, 2004) and the World Health Organisation Quality of Life Spirituality, Religion and Personal Beliefs (WHOQOL SRPB; WHOQOL SRPB Group, 2006) were mostly medium to large in size and statistically significant. This suggests that the HEHIQ measures similar but not identical constructs to those measured by the BREF and the SRPB."
## [305] "When only individuals who successfully malingered MR (FSIQ < 71) were included, sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 1.00 were obtained. In support of concurrent validity, the SBRMI-NV was significantly correlated with the TOMM Trial 2 (Tombaugh, 1996) (n = 54; r = .40; p < .001), RDS (Greiffenstein et al., 1994) (n = 54; r = .57; p < .001), WMT IR (Green et al., 1996) (n = 54; r = .42; p < .01), and WMT DR (Green et al., 1996) (n = 54; r = .37; p < .01) for the analog MR malingerer group."
## [306] "Content validity was established by an expert panel. Criterion validity coefficients ranged from 0.19-0.38. In the acute geriatric units, higher levels of ‘management commitment to patient safety’ and lower levels of ‘error fatalism’ were associated with a reduced incidence of medical errors. In the comparison group (N = 268), only the variable ‘active learning from mistakes’ was relevant for safety performance. These results supported convergent and criterion validity."
## [307] "Ratings from the CPSR specialists at the study site indicated strong agreement regarding the acceptability of the 35 proposed CPSR treatment adherence and differentiation criteria on the PCAC-R. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) using a two-way random effects model for the 23 raters was .82, F(31.0, 682) = 102.25, P<.001. A Kruskal–Wallis test indicated parent-report CTAM scores differed significantly between children receiving psychotherapy, low-adherence CPSR, and high-adherence CPSR, χ²(2) = 12.55, P = .002. Follow-up Mann–Whitney U tests indicated children receiving CPSR scored significantly higher on the CTAM (M = 135.09, SD = 11.18) than children receiving outpatient psychotherapy (n = 20, M = 116.45, SD = 16.58), z = -3.16, P = .002. Similarly, children receiving CPSR from workers with reputations for high-adherence scored significantly higher than children receiving CPSR from specialists with reputations for low adherence."
## [308] "Construct Validity: The EFS correlated significantly with the Geriatrician’s Clinical Impression of Frailty (GCIF; Rolfson et al., 2001), age and medication count but not with sex. In the construct validation sub-samples, the correlation with the Barthel Index (Mahoney & Barthel, 1965) was statistically significant (r = –0.58, P = 0.006, n = 21), but the correlation with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) was not (r = –0.05, P = 0.801, n = 30)."
## [309] "Face validity and item refinement were made by interviews with a subsample of PHC professionals (n = 9). Construct validity was supported by factor analysis results."
## [310] "Sensitivity and Specificity: This instrument was 19.1% (95% CI [12.7,25.5]) more sensitive than the original PSS in identifying panic-like anxiety in this sample ( x2(1, N = 351) = 23.89 p < .001) while maintaining a similar specificity ( x2(1, N = 659) = 0.754, p = .385; 0.4%, 95% CI [ -3.6, 4.5]). Discriminant Validity: The discriminant validity of the Revised-PSS proved stable over the course of a 10-fold cross-validation."
## [311] "To promote content and face validity, expert opinions of four transgender activists (one of whom is also an academic) were solicited to get their feedback on content, and three cognitive interviews were conducted. Supporting construct validity, there was a significant difference in the scores for transgender individuals (n = 277, M = 3.702, SD = .672) compared with cisgender individuals (n = 635, M = 2.990, SD = .820); t(634.313) = 13.723, p ≤ .001. There was also a statistically significant difference between different sexual orientations and mean scores on the TIBS."
## [312] "Construct Validity: Eight factors from six dimensions reported bivariate correlation coefficients ranging from .26 to .66, with 92.9% (N = 26) of the coefficients ranging from .3 to .7. All bivariate correlations were statistically significant at .01 level. While the correlation matrix between factors did not provide empirical evidence to the validity of the measurement, it indicated overall consistency across the factors and suggested that the factors were able to discriminate between different types of parental needs."
## [313] "Face and Content Validity: Two rounds of interviews (n = 12) tested the adapted modules. Overall, all items in the final versions were well understood by patients and were reported to be relevant. The instructions were clear to all respondents and there were no missing responses."
## [314] "Perceived personal control (total score) after counseling correlated .43 (n = 161 , p < .001) with counselors’ estimations of controllability provided."
## [315] "Concurrent validity: The scale correlated .40, indicating a moderate correlation with \"behavioral\" altruism. Convergent validity: The scale showed acceptable convergent validities in the sense that scores correlated moderately with those on Bryant's Empathy Scale (1982) (N =53, r = .40), Rotter's I-E scale, internally scored (1966) (N = 33, r = .62), Berkowitz & Lutterman's Social Responsibility Scale (1968) (N = 48, r = .59), Rosenberg's Self-esteem scale (1965) (N=38, r =.66), and Schulze's Dogmatism Scale (1962) (N = 30, r = .08). Discriminant validity: Discriminant validity is shown by a relatively low heterotrait-homomethod coefficient (.45)."
## [316] "In Drake et al., (1990), case manager ratings showed a sensitivity of 94.7 (n=18) and a specificity of 100.0 (n=56)."
## [317] "Content Validity: Survey items were reviewed for content validity by the second author, whose area of expertise is bilingual education and policy studies. The tool was piloted with a small group (n = 10) of undergraduate students who, similar to our participants, had not yet taken our Language and Literacy for a Diverse Society class. One question was removed from the tool following the pilot study."
## [318] "Test Sensitivity and Specificity: The test reached a sensitivity and specificity of 100 percent (healthy elderly controls vs. patients with Alzheimer's disease: n = 125, U = 0, p < 0.001; patients with depressive disorder vs. patients with Alzheimer's disease: n = 140, U = 0, p < 0.001; healthy elderly controls vs. patients with depressive disorder: n = 89, U = 485.5, p < 0.001). External Validity: The pattern of correlations with independent measures provided support for this instrument's validity. Validation measures included general and dementia-specific mental status indicators and a depression scale."
## [319] "Concurrent Validity: To assess the concurrent validity, the authors computed the correlations between the subscales of the Vocational Interests Scale with subscales of the Self-Directed Search (Form R—4th Edition; SDS; Holland, 1994). Due to the sample size (n = 970), most correlations were significant. If the new scale has high construct validity, similar dimensions in the new scale and types in SDS would show as least moderate correlations. Results showed that the correlations of six pairs, including Realistic (equals Operational in the Chinese Vocational Interests Scale), Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional did present moderate correlations, which were higher than others, as expected."
## [320] "Content Validity: PG-YBOCS showed good content validity in severity and change highly correlated with South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987). Convergent Validity: Convergent validity, using Pearson's correlation between the Total PG-YBOCS change score and the SOGS, was significant (r= .895, n = 337, p = .000). Discriminant Validity: Measures hypothesized not to be highly correlated with gambling displayed discriminant validity with the PG-YBOCS: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS; Hamilton, 1959) (r= -005; n=188; p=.974) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; Hamilton, 1960) (r= .084, n = 188, p =.608). The absence of correlation, in this way, confirms that PG-YBOCS' construct is independent from HARS and HAM-D constructs."
## [321] "Test Validity: A positive relationship was found between total brain volume and educational attainment (r = .12). Test Specificity: Results found statistically significant, yet much smaller in magnitude, associations of total brain volume (TBV) with numeric memory (r = .11, 95% CI = [.08, .14] including genetic controls, N = 7,722) and visual memory (r = –.05, 95% CI = [–.07, –.03] including genetic controls, N = 13,292) and no significant relationship with the reaction time task (r = –.02, 95% CI = [–.04, .00] including genetic controls, N = 13,292)."
## [322] "Discriminative Validity: In the younger group (n = 31), the median score was 50, whereas it was 32 in the older group (n = 38), and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). Convergent Validity: A positive and moderate correlation was found between the Danish Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Hvenegaard et al., 2015) and the FCRI total scores (r = 0.49, p < 0.001). Responsiveness: The mean difference in total FCRI scores (4.9, 95% CI: 1.6, 8.2) between pre-scan and post-scan was statistically significant (p = 0.005)."
## [323] "Test validity: Total ACCT score for participants with dementia or schizophrenia was moderately correlated with the total Modified Mini-Mental State Exam (3MS; Teng & Chui, 1987) score (r = .47; p < .01). The ACCT was not significantly correlated with total Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993) score (r = .25; NS) nor any BSI subscales. As a second indicator of validity, dichotomous ratings of capacity by the ACCT versus primary care provider ratings, for 27 subjects with either dementia or schizophrenia, agreed 74% of the time (kappa = .44; p < .01; n = 27). Finally, as a third indicator of validity, patients with dementia or schizophrenia performed lower than a healthy comparison group."
## [324] "Convergent Validity: Scores on the Fan Identity Scale were significantly correlated (r = .589, p < .001, n = 201) with Tsay-Vogel and Sanders’ (2017) Fandom Scale, and the Appreciation subscale was positively correlated with the eudaimonic motivation measure (r = .454, p < .001, n = 201)."
## [325] "Content validity: Content validity was confirmed by an expert panel. Construct validity: The higher the level of self-identified socially responsible consumer behavior, the more socially responsible consumption reported on the SRPD, supporting construct validity. Convergent validity: All AVEs were above .50, supporting convergent validity. Discriminant validity: The 3-factor model outperformed the 2-factor model (x² difference (2, n=194)=361.69,p<.01) and the null model (x² difference (2, n=194)=361.69, p<.01), indicating discriminant validity."
## [326] "Sensitivity/Specificity: A threshold score of FCQ-T-r greater than or equal to 50 allowed discriminate patients with addiction to the diet of patients without addiction to the diet (chi-square = (1, n = 372) = 1107.92; p <0.001), with a sensitivity of 87.2%; a specificity of 75.2%, a positive predictive value of 51.4% and a value of negative predictive of 95.1%."
## [327] "Convergent and Discriminant Validity: The CS-LEAD was tested with a hybrid model using latent analysis in structural equation modeling, yielding indices that demonstrated good fit to the data: chi-square (66, N =154) = 93.07, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation = .07; 90% CI [.05, .09], CFI = .95, TLI = .94, SRMR = .04). The results demonstrated that the association between leadership in advocacy and advocacy outcome expectations was moderately strong and significant, .33, p < .01. As expected, the link between leadership in advocacy and academic self-efficacy was weak and not statistically, significant, .10, p < .05. Also, the association between advocacy outcome expectations and academic self-efficacy was strong and significant, .61, p < .05, which is notable, given domain differences. Taken together, these results provided initial evidence of convergent and discriminant validity in the CS-LEAD, suggesting that it taps the single factor domain as intended."
## [328] "Concurrent Validity: Kruskal-Wallis H test results showed significant differences among the four groups (i.e., mild symptom group, n = 435; moderate symptom group, n = 163; severe symptom group, n = 93; extreme symptom group, n = 16): number of days, chi-square (3) = 285.58, p < .05; amount of money, chi-square (3) = 288.68, p < .05. Correlation analyses results showed that the GSAS-J score was significantly and well-correlated with the South Oaks Gambling Screen – Modified Japanese version (SOGS-J; Saito, 1996) score (r = .57), the Japanese version of the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS-J; Yokomitsu et al., 2015) score (r = .71), and the Japanese version of the Gambling Urge Scale (GUS-J; Tanaka et al., 2017) score (r = .72)."
## [329] "Convergent Validity: The mini- STABS had a near-perfect correlation with the 21-item STABS (r = 0.97; p < 0.001), and with each of the two STABS factors: Social Comparison (r = 0.98; p < 0.001) and Social Ineptness (r = 0.90; p < 0.001). The mini-STABS also had significant and very high correlations with the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz 1987) total score (r = 0.81; p < 0.001). Divergent Validity: The mini-STABS had a significant correlation with the BDI (r = 0.55, n = 361, p < 0.001), but this correlation was significantly smaller than the correlation with the LSAS (z = 7.00, df = 358, p < 0.001)."
## [330] "Convergent Validity: Correlations of the criterion measures with the F-indicator were moderately positive (German version of the Tuckman Procrastination Scale [TPS-d: Stöber, 1995]: r = .38, p = .002; German version of the Academic Procrastination State Inventory [APSI-d: Helmke & Schrader, 2000]: r = .45, p < .001). Mann-Whitney test results (U = 556.0, p = .03) indicated that the frequency of observed procrastination (F-indicator) was higher for participants with a high tendency to procrastinate (TPS-d score ≥ Mdn = 47.0, n = 39) than for participants with a low tendency to procrastinate (TPS-d score < Mdn = 47.0, n = 38). In addition, a Mann-Whitney test (U = 565.5, p = .04) indicated that the frequency of observed procrastination (F-indicator) was higher for participants with a high APSI-d score (> Mdn = 1.67, n = 38) than for participants with a low APSI-d score (≤ Mdn = 1.67, n = 39)."
## [331] "Convergent Validity: RCSS score for those who had difficult adjustment at home was higher (M = 160.69, SD = 22.46, n = 70) than for those who have easy adjustment at home (M = 151.37, SD = 25.75, n = 67), t(135) = 2.26, p < .02 after return from abroad. Further, Cohen’s effect size value for this difference was .38. Content Validity: Feedback from subject experts was taken before and after having the result of factor analysis to ensure content validity since some items were dropped."
## [332] "Discriminant Validity: Results showed that patients with a low WQ score (n = 49, 32%) were more often women (p = 0.013) and less educated (p = 0.004), reported more cognitive complaints (d = 0.69), more emotional problems (d = 0.38 and 0.52), and lower HRQoL (d = 0.40 and 0.45) and, last but not least, performed worse on the navigation ability tasks (d = 0.23–0.80). Patients scored lower than controls on 21/22 WQ items, predominantly with small to medium effect sizes (d = 0.20–0.51)."
## [333] "External validity: Modest negative correlations were found at age 6.5 between the dyadic prosocial behaviors of the twins and their dyadic conflict scores (mothers’ reports: r = .11, N = 445 pairs, p = .024; fathers’ reports: r = .14, N = 349, p = .007) and dyadic rivalry scores as reported by fathers (r = .18, N = 349, p = 0.001). Dyadic prosocial behaviors did not correlate significantly with mother-reported rivalry (r = .06, N = 445, p = .178) as well as with both parents’ reports on dyadic closeness (mother: r = .04, N = 445, p = .402; father: r = .06, N = 349, p = .306)."
## [334] "Construct validity: Results of the factor analysis lend support to the construct validity of the measure. Convergent and Divergent validity: Trait-anxiety and self-efficacy scores were used for divergent and convergent validity considerations. The total score of the COSE-TR was significantly correlated with those of the STAI-T (Spielberger, 1983) and GSE (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) scores. As expected for convergent validity, the COSE-TR scores were positively correlated with GSE scores (n = 269, r = .59, p < .001) and, as expected for divergent validity, the COSE-TR scores were negatively correlated with the STAI-T scores (n = 269, r =. -50, p < .001)."
## [335] "Convergent validity: In support of convergent validity, there were significant correlations between the SBI-15 and religious intrinsic orientation (r=0.84) and core spiritual experiences (r=0.82). Divergent validity: As for divergent validity, the correlations between the initial SBI-54 and the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis, 1983) and Medical Outcome Study (Stewart et al., 1988) were close to zero. Discriminant validity: Tests of discriminant validity revealed a significant difference between the religious (n=69) and lay (n=228) groups for both the first administration of the SBI-15, [t(295)=11.23, p=0.000, twotailed] and the retest (religious group=28; lay group=57), [t(83)=4.95, p=0.0001, two-tailed]. The effect of regression to the mean is the most likely explanation for the observed changes."
## [336] "Face and Content Validity: The draft questionnaire was reviewed by an “Expert Reference Group” (n = 6), all of whom have experience in undertaking child health research, to assure the face and content validity of the instrument and to ensure that it adequately addressed the aims and objectives of the research. Changes to the content and presentation were made accordingly. Prior to distribution, five children’s nurses, within the sample group, were asked to complete the questionnaire and comment on clarity, content and burden of completion. Support for the validity of the questionnaire was confirmed, and minor amendments were submitted for approval prior to the main study."
## [337] "Convergent Validity: The correlation of the GAS-ID with the Anxiety sub-scale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A; Zigmond & Snaith 1983) was r = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47–0.72), P < 0.01 (n = 96), which is considered moderate (Hinkle et al. 2002). Criterion Validity: Specificity rates remain lower than 50% with different cut-off scores. Correlation with the HADS-A was r = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47–0.72); sensitivity was 83.9%(95% CI: 72.2–91.2) and specificity was 51.8%(95% CI: 43.6–59.9) using a cut-off score of 17."
## [338] "Content and Face Validity: The AKVDC instrument’s content and face validity were tested by an independent panel of multiprofessional healthcare staff (N = 9) composed of uro-/gynaecological nurses, pelvic floor physiotherapists, sex counsellors and gynaecologists. They commented on the structure, phrasing, clarity, comprehensibility, relevance and assessment scale of the instrument. Based on their work experience with vulvodynia patients, the instrument was modified as appropriate."
## [339] "Convergent validity: Convergent validity between EIAE and Schutte Scale (Schutte et al., 1998) scores were moderate (rs=.64, p<.001). However, when participants were separated by age, the convergent validity of those aged ≥26 years (n=10) was high (rs=.83, p<.002) compared with participants aged ≤25 years (n=26) (rs=.58, p<.002)."
## [340] "Construct Validity: The DAPR subscales demonstrated significant correlations in the expected directions and magnitude with the other outcome measures, supporting construct validity. Concurrent Validity: Using a subsample (n = 546), each subscale of the DAPR was found to be significantly associated with related questionnaires in the expected directions, providing evidence for concurrent validity."
## [341] "Criterion Validity: The food task results showed a significant correlation between food neophobia scores and participants’ willingness to try novel foods (r=−0.54, p < 0.01, N=221). There was also a significant correlation between food neophobia scores and the proportion of the novel foods among the selected foods (r=−0.29, p < 0.01, N=221)."
## [342] "Convergent Validity: The overall AAUSES scale and subscales were positively and significantly correlated with perceived health competence and generalized self-efficacy. The correlations were significant, but most were weak or moderate. Discriminant Validity: The chance and powerful others locus of control scales were negatively correlated with the overall scale score, MATPR and ATOA. Criterion-Related Validity: The AAUSES was positively correlated with antibiotic resistance concern (r =0.237, p < .001), and those who had heard of antibiotic resistance (yes: n = 252, no: n = 37) had significantly higher AAUSES scores than those who had not (Mann Whitney U = 2635.5, p < .001)."
## [343] "Face validity: Face validity of NEI-VFQ 25 had a mean (SD) of 7.8 (1.7) (n = 84). Test validity: The NEI-VFQ was significantly correlated to visual acuity and Patient Acceptable Symptom Status (PASS 5; Heiberg et al., 2008) as well as EuroQoL Health Questionnaire 3 Level version (EQ-5D-3 L; EuroQol G, 1990) at baseline."
## [344] "Construct validity: Using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, a moderate correlation was found between the FROM scores and the WHOQOL-BREF scores (n = 119, r = -0.55, p<0.001). The two domains also showed a moderate correlation with the WHOQOL-BREF score (Emotional r = -0.43, p<0.001; Personal and Social Life r = -0.52, p<0.001). The correlation was negative due to the different scoring directions of the questionnaires. The impact of illness on family members of patients was therefore correlated to their overall QoL. The GHS correlated negatively with the total FROM score using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r = -0.51, p<0.001). The two domains also showed a moderate correlation with overall health (Emotional r = -0.48, p<0.001; Personal and Social Life r = -0.45, p<0.001)."
## [345] "Concurrent Validity: The GIS was compared to scores of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987). Results showed the GIS favorably correlating with the SOGS: (r = 0.57, n = 115, P < 0.001)."
## [346] "Construct Validity: There was a moderate positive correlation between the DASH and Nepali version of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI-NP) pain items r = 0.63, P < 0.001 n = 156 and a high positive correlation between the disability items; r = 0.81, P < 0.001, n = 132. The mean change of the DASH-NP scores demonstrated ‘moderate’ negative correlation with GROC-NP scores (r = − 0.40, p < 0.001). Test Responsiveness: The main analysis comparing the stable group with all improved groups demonstrated an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57– 0.81, p < 0.001) and MIC of 11.2 percentage points indicating that DASH-NP has acceptable responsiveness characteristics and is sensitive to detect meaningful change."
## [347] "Face and Content Validity: Using Aiken’s V coefficient and its cut-off value to determine validity content, consensus was found (V>0.67, n=32, p<0.05) for all items answered by participants in pilot study and for almost all subjects in the experts’ study (V>0.69, n=12, p<0.05)."
## [348] "Construct Validity: Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis revealed a significant, positive association between the two subscales (r = .96 and sig/2 tailed = .003). High Cronbach's alpha and acceptable inter-item correlation suggests the subscales represent two distinct dimensions (Polit & Beck, 2017). Content Validity: With a CVI score of 0.92 (n = 23) for subscale 1 and 0.89 (n = 23) for subscale 2, both fall within a range of being more than acceptable."
## [349] "Concurrent Validity: With respect to concurrent validity, results indicated significant correlation between NWR task and BVN 5–11 (Bisiacchi et al., 2005) test: rs = 0.772, p < 0.001 for disyllabic and rs = 0.832, p < 0.001 for trisyllabic items. Construct Validity: Considering the whole sample, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test confirmed a statistically significant difference between a higher performance in disyllabic items and a lower performance in trisyllabic items (Z = −5.212, p < 0.001). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the NWR scores performed by children of eight different age groups, both for disyllabic section (chi-square (7, n = 375) = 63.39, p < 0.001) and for trisyllabic section (chi-square (7, n = 375) = 146.95, p < 0.001)."
## [350] "Discriminative validity: When social workers (n = 156) were compared to psychologists and counsellors (n = 61) on the PUNU (Busiol & Wu, 2018) and the CHKCC, both groups showed the same order among subscales; however, social workers (M = 3.64, SD = .70) scored significantly higher on the CHKCC than psychologists and counsellors (M = 3.19, SD = .80), t = -4.0, p < .001 (Cohen’s d = .60, 95% CI [0.30, 0.90]). Furthermore, concerning the CHKCC, whereas for social workers the confidence interval lies completely above the theoretical mid-point (from a low of 3.52, to a high of 3.75), meaning that the great majority of them thinks that psychoanalysis is in conflict with Hong Kong Chinese values and clients’ expectations, for psychologists and counsellors it lies below (from a low of 2.98, to a high of 3.40), showing that they have an opposite opinion."
## [351] "Construct Convergent and Discriminant validity: The standardized factor loadings were all above .50, and the AVEs and CRs were above the required thresholds. These findings provide support for convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). The AVEs of each construct were higher than the shared variance with the other constructs, providing support for discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, in comparison to two alternative models, Model 2 and Model 3, the proposed model (χ2(242, n = 197) = 413.580, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.709, CFI = .92, IFI = .93, RMSEA = .06) had the best fit to the data, providing further support for discriminant validity."
## [352] "Convergent Validity: The correlation coefficients between the overall scale, its three subscales, and the total score of the C-SAPS (Wang et al., 2019) in the whole sample (n = 2,086) were 0.615 (P < 0.01, total score), 0.691 (P < 0.01, PD), 0.410 (P < 0.01, DU), and 0.251 (P < 0.01, PU). Other than the PU subscale and anxiety, the C-PMPUQ-SV and its subscales were significantly positively correlated with the three types of emotional symptoms (all Ps < 0.01). Construct Validity: Most correlations between the CPMPUQ-SV and the DASS-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) were significant."
## [353] "Construct Validity: The Pearson correlation coefficient between total score Passion Scale and Grit-S scale was 0.39 for adults (mean age=21.23, SD=3.45, n=107)."
## [354] "Construct Validity: The MJWQ was significantly and positively associated with job satisfaction (r = .686; p < .0001; n = 378). Content Validity: Content validity was supported based on expert item feedback and the removal of items from consideration due to redundancy or nonfit."
## [355] "Criterion Validity: The correlation between the PRAS and the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983) was moderate, r = .45, N = 142, p < .001. Similarly, the PRAS was significantly correlated with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; Cox, Holden, & Sagovsky, 1987) (r = .52, N = 141, p < .001). Convergent/Discriminant Validity: The PRAS total scale demonstrated convergent validity with measures of anxiety, r = .45, p < .001, and depression, r = .52, p < .001, while also representing a distinct construct and discriminant validity from less-related constructs. Predictive Validity: PRAS mean scores significantly predicted STAI caseness at 1-month postpartum, β = 1.46, Wald = 7.13, OR = 4.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.47, 12.54], p = .008, while statistically controlling for STAI mean scores at baseline (OR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.05, 1.16], p < .001)."
## [356] "Discriminant Validity: The Area under the curve (AUC) scores for the two CY-BOCS subscales ranged from 0.88 (Compulsions) to 0.92 (Obsessions). The CY-BOCS total score showed an AUC=.921 (SE=.012; p<.001; lower limit 95% CI =.895, upper limit 95% CI =.943; n=528), which indicates outstanding discriminatory power. Sensitivity and Specificity: Sensitivity and specificity values ranged from 98.5 to 100 and from 70.7 to 79.31, respectively. Predictive Validity: Positive predictive values ranged from 9.5 to 11.4. Convergent and Divergent Validity: The divergent and convergent validities of the CY-BOCS total and subscales were good. Associations of the total and subscale scores of the Persian version of the CY-BOCS with other psychological variables were as expected."
## [357] "Test Validity: The instrument and its 3 self-control requirements scales showed that in Sample 1 (n = 341) significantly positive correlations with all stress indicators were demonstrated as expected. This means that with increasing self-control requirements, there is an increase in burnout experience, anxiety, depressive symptoms and musculoskeletal complaints. Similar results were shown for the sample 2 data (n = 72), with all 3 self-control requirements having significant positive correlations with both dimensions of burnout. However, musculoskeletal complaints only reflected a significant influence in the Resisting distractions scale."
## [358] "Convergent Validity: Psychometric analyses conducted on Sample 1 (N = 177) indicated that the SAPS scores demonstrated convergent validity with the scores from several other self-reported measures of student well-being and mental health problems. Incremental Validity: Psychometric analyses conducted on Sample 2 (N = 219) demonstrated that SAPS scores had incremental validity, when used in conjunction with scores from a self-report internalizing problems screener, used for identifying students with greater levels of mental health risk."
## [359] "Construct Validity: The score for the ‘mood factor’ (apathy, depression/dysphoria) in NPI (Cummings et al., 1994) predicted the overall QOL score as determined from both the patients’ and the caregivers’ responses for subjects with mild (MMSE ≥ 21, n = 88) and moderate (MMSE < 21, n = 52) AD. Concurrent Validity: There was a substantive and significant agreement of the total score determined from the patients’ and the caregivers’ responses (r = 0.60, p < 0.01). Except for the items relating to physical health and money, there was moderate agreement between the patients’ and caregivers’ responses for each item."
## [360] "Convergent Validity: The mVAT was moderately correlated with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) (Rho = 0.51, p < 0.001, n = 54), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS; Storey et al., 2004) (Rho = 0.61, p < 0.001, n = 39), and the Cross-Cultural Dementia Screening (CCD; Goudsmit et al., 2017) objects test part A (Rho =0.58, p < 0.001, n = 71) and part B (Rho = 0.63, p < 0.001, n = 70). The VAT showed similarly moderate correlations with these cognitive screening measures. Discriminative Validity: The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.95 for the mVAT (n = 36) and 0.88 for the VAT (n = 30). In discriminating patients with dementia from the entire sample (including healthy controls), the AUC for the first trial of the mVAT was 0.85 ( n = 87); the AUC for the first trial of the VAT was 0.77 (n = 80). Separate analysis of only the Turkish participants revealed similar results."
## [361] "Convergent Validity: The D-DACS primary indices of awareness were assessed by correlations with the D-DACS global indices of awareness and self-report measures of conceptually related processes. Results showed moderate positive correlations between the primary and global indices of awareness (made prior to coding the primary indices), indicating that the D-DACS primary indices of awareness demonstrate a good level of convergent validity with the more subjective, index of awareness as measured by the D-DACS. But, there were no significant correlations between the D-DACS primary indices of awareness and any of the self-report scales or subscales. Predictive validity: No significant positive correlations were found between the primary indices of awareness and changes in the PHQ-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001) and the GAD-7 scores (Spitzer et al., 2006) between sessions 1 and 2 for a subset of the sample who returned for a second session (n = 35)."
## [362] "Convergent Validity: VAS (Herr et al., 2004), NRS (Chibnall & Tait, 2001) and VRS mean scores for communicative acute pain patients (n = 78) were 5.5 ± 2.7, 6.0 ± 2.4 and 3.8 ± 1.3, respectively. For non-acute pain and acute pain patients, the respective Spearman correlation coefficients between the Algoplus score and VAS, NRS or VDS scores were: 0.81 (n = 44), 0.88 (n = 57) and 0.78 (n = 86), and all these correlations were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Discriminant Validity: The total Algoplus score was significantly higher for acute pain than non-acute pain patients and those significant differences persisted for communicative and ICV patients. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: For patients with acute pain conditions, a score P2 out of 5 on the Algoplus scale was retained as the threshold for the presence of acute pain in elderly ICV inpatients, with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Face Validity: Scores were obtained in <60 s for 80% of the raters and in <120 s for 95% of them."
## [363] "Concurrent Validity: All subscales were significantly correlated via bivariate correlations with the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S; Côté et al., 1999) scores. Discriminant Validity: Discriminant function analysis indicated that athletes’ reports on CPS-F discriminated between athletes’ performance levels, Wilks’s Λ = .94, χ2(6, n = 428) = 26.77, p < .001. Predictive Validity: All factors were significantly correlated with athlete awareness of mental strategies."
## [364] "Concurrent Validity: All subscales were significantly correlated via bivariate correlations with the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S; Côté et al., 1999) scores. Discriminant Validity: Athletes’ reports on CPS-NS discriminated between athlete performance levels, Wilks’s Λ = .96, χ2(4, n = 418) = 16.96, p < .001. Predictive Validity: All factors were significantly correlated with athlete awareness of mental strategies."
## [365] "Face Validity: As the VAMS items were discussed, explored, and chosen by professional ice hockey players and the first author, face validity was demonstrated. Predictive Validity: Pearson's correlation coefficients showed the VAMS to be negatively associated with the performance measures Assist (r = −0.30, n= 59, p = 0.02) and Team Points (TP) (r = −0.29, n= 59, p= 0.028). However, the mindfulness subscale significantly correlated with Assist (r = −0.38, n= 59, p = 0.003), and TP (r= −0.35, n= 59, p = 0.007). Concurrent Validity: The VAMS showed significant correlation with the Swedish Acceptance and Avoidance Questionnaire (SAAQ; Lundgren & Parling, 2017), and with measures of emotional distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress), demonstrating concurrent validity. Construct Validity: The VAMS demonstrated good construct validity, due to significantly correlating with the SAAQ (acceptance and action)."
## [366] "Construct Validity: An independent sample of U.S. female college students (n = 184) completed a test battery including the IOET and measures of eating attitudes and disturbances, positive and negative affectivity, and general optimism. Results showed the IOET positively associating with the scores on measures of eating disturbances (e.g., bulimic symptoms) and negative affectivity; the IOET was negatively associated with scores on a measure of general optimism. Incremental Validity: The IOET was found to add incremental validity to the prediction of eating disturbances, even after accounting for general optimism and affectivity."
## [367] "Discriminant Validity: Evidence was found in support of the questionnaire’s discriminant validity, as the scale measures a phenomenon other than that measured by the scales to which it is compared (AUDIT and OQ-45.2). The correlation between the ICE-A and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Babor et al., 2001) was positive, low magnitude, and statistically significant (r = .26, p = .033, n = 66). However, the correlation with the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2; Lambert et al., 1996) was also positive but its magnitude was very low and statistically nonsignificant (r = .13, p = .305, n = 62)."
## [368] "Criterion Validity: The LFDSS assessed a sample of older African Americans (n = 69), with results showing the LFDSS risk score was significantly related to both the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein,1975) (r = –.26; p< .05) and the money management subscale of the Independent Living Scale (ILS), a performance-based measure of executional skills and financial knowledge (r = –.20; p < .05). The LFDSS risk score was increased for those with poorer cognition, poorer financial executional skills, and lower financial knowledge. These initial results demonstrated positive criterion-related validity for the LFDSS."
## [369] "Concurrent Validity: Total scores, nausea scores, and vomiting scores were correlated with Criteria for Nausea and Vomiting from the National Cancer Institute (NCI-NV; Berg, 1997; Kirkwood et al., 1994; Tenenbaum, 1994) from Day 1 to Day 3 (r = 0.58–0.89, P < 0.05, n = 20) except for nausea score on Day 1 (r = 0.34, P = 0.07). That is, children’s subjective experiences of nausea are more difficult than vomiting to be observed by the parents. There were significantly moderate to strong associations between parents and children in measuring these symptoms from Day 1 to Day 3 (total scores: r = 0.85–0.93; nausea scores: r = 0.67–0.93; and vomiting scores: r = 0.91–0.99, all P < 0.01). Therefore, parents’ observation of their children’s symptoms was strongly associated with their child’s self-report of symptoms. Face Validity: For face validity, this instrument was translated from English to Chinese and then translated back from Chinese to English by a group of doctoral nursing students."
## [370] "Convergent Validity: Convergent validity showed a strong, positive correlation between the depressive symptoms subscale and HADS (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) (r = 0.61, n = 444, p < 0.01). Divergent Validity: There was a negative correlation between the CSPro-BC sexual subscale and HADS (r = − 0.49, n = 312, p < 0.01), and a negative relationship was observed between the sexual subscale and fatigue (BFI; Mendoza et al., 1999) (r = − 0.31, n = 312, p < 0.01). These results did indicate divergent validity of the subscales investigated. Content Validity: The expert panel yielded an I-CVI of 0.81–0.90, indicating a high level of content validity for each single item. The SCVI for the full scale was 0.87, indicating that the overall scale had a high degree of relevance and comprehensibility and was appropriately culturally adapted."
## [371] "Convergent and Divergent validity: Severity scores of the AVHRS-Q were strongly correlated to the severity scores of the AVHRS (Bartels-Velthuis et al., 2012;, Jenner & van de Willige, 2002) (r = 0.90, p < 0.01). The AVHRS-Q and AVHRS did not differ in the identification of mild and severe voice-hearers [chi-squared (1, N = 32) = 15.71]. AVHRS-Q severity scores had moderate correlations with psychological distress (r = 0.43, p < 0.01, r = 0.50, p < 0.05) and quality of life (r = − 0.22, p < 0.01)."
## [372] "Convergent validity: There was a moderate correlation (N = 79 observations; correlation coefficient = 0.525; p < .01) between the bedside nurses LOF and the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) 6-Clicks (Geelen, Valkenet, & Veenhof, 2018; Jette et al., 2014) score."
## [373] "Face Validity: The items themselves, drawn from extensive assessment interviews with chronic hallucinators (Chadwick & Birchwood, 1994), established good face validity. Construct Validity: Factor analysis was used to determine construct validity. Criterion-related Validity: From a sample (n = 40) assessed via semi-structured interview, results found the malevolence scale to have a highly significant difference with the other criterion groups, with people known to believe their voices to be malevolent scoring very much higher on the malevolence scale of the BAVQ than those known to believe their voices either 'benevolent' or 'neither'; these latter two groups did not differ on this scale. Moreover, comparing the criterion groups using the benevolence scale yielded a highly significant finding, with the 'benevolent' group scoring very much higher than the 'malevolent' and 'neither' group, who did not differ from one another."
## [374] "Construct Validity: The QYCC was assessed for construct validity by examining how it correlated with theoretically connected measures: the short version of the Gay Affirmative Practice scale (GAP-S; Gandy & Crisp, 2015), which measures beliefs and behaviors of gay-affirmative practice, and the Transphobia Scale (Nagoshi et al., 2008), which measures attitudes about issues of gender fluidity and transgender identity. Pearson’s correlations showed values of r = 0.645 (p < .001; n = 113) for the GAP-S and r = − 0.703 (p < .001; n = 99) for the Transphobia Scale. Good construct validity was seen between these measures and the QYCC."
## [375] "Concurrent Criterion Validity: RPQ total scores at six months post TBI of patients (self-)reporting severe (M = 20.7; SD = 18.3; N = 30) or moderate (M = 20.2; SD = 13.9; N = 112) disabilities according to their total scores on the GOSE scale, differed significantly to those that showed good recovery at this point in time (M = 8.3; SD = 10.6; N = 248) (F(2, 387) = 42.7; p <.001). RPQ total scores at six months post TBI further were found to differentiate between initial mTBI (M = 11.6; SD = 13.2; N = 316) and moderate TBI (M = 20.2; SD = 16.8; N = 21) diagnoses (GCS-scores) (F(2, 357) = 4.5; p = .012). Test Sensitivity: Recovery status at six months post TBI, showing that those who (self-) reported moderate or severe disabilities six months after the brain injury took place, had significant lower RPQ total scores compared to those reporting good recovery at that time point."
## [376] "Concurrent Validity: Analyzing the correlations of the SEAR score with the OAS score determined concurrent validity. Results showed the correlations between the scores for the first aggressive incident and for the most aggressive incident were rs = 0.591 (p < 0.001, N = 254) in the first case, and rs = 0.595 (p < 0.001; N = 254) in the latter."
## [377] "Construct Validity: Subject matter experts (i.e., advanced doctoral students in I/O Psychology) reviewed the LMX ambivalence scale items, finding them to reliably match the construct definitions for each of the 3 scales, at above the recommended 75% acceptance level (Hinkin, 1998), indicative of good content validity. Discriminant Validity: A sample of full-time working adults (n = 152) from the UK and US was assessed for 3 related concepts: overall LMX quality, ambivalent leader identification, and LMX certainty (adapted from the LMX7 scale). Results showed LMX ambivalence moderately correlated with LMX quality (-.42, p < .001) and LMX certainty (-.54, p < .001), and that LMX ambivalence was highly correlated with leader ambivalence (.78, p < .001). Further discriminant validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis."
## [378] "Criterion Validity: Correlations of the PSEDT-1 scales with the external criterion HbA1c value, showing the expected significant correlations showed. Known-Groups Validity: The group of children whose HbA1c level was within the recommended target value (<7.5) showed on the PSEDT-1 overall scale significantly higher values (M = 4.56, SD = 0.72, n = 96) compared to the group in which the children did not meet the target value could achieve (M = 4.40, SD = 0.64, n = 123, U-Test, z = −2.181, p = 0.015). Convergent Validity: The theoretically expected correlation pattern for checking the convergent validity showed in the expected directions, although the connections tend to be were moderate."
## [379] "Predictive Validity: In Study 2, the NAT tested a subsample of patients at follow-up (NAT2, follow up patients, n = 100), along with the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL; Barberger-Gateau et al., 1992). The Pearson’s correlation between NAT2 and the IADL was r = .64, which proved to be as high as the correlation of NAT2 and NAT1 (Study 1: patients at discharge) at r = .66. Content/Face Validity: In items 1 and 3, tasks are conjoined into larger activities. In item 2, a single task is performed in the presence of related distractors. Item 3 involves searching through a drawer and remembering to signal after each task. All these are features of real world activities and contribute to the NAT’s content and face validity. Concurrent Criterion Validity: The NAT yielded robust correlations (around .5) with both the physical and cognitive subscales of FIM (Linacre et al., 1994)."
## [380] "Predictive Validity: The Study 2 sample (n = 264) demonstrated the predictive utility of the RMQ via an experiment on helping behavior following Weiner's (1985) prediction model. Results showed that the likelihood of helping a needy classmate was a joint function of the controllability of the reason for need and the peer helper’s attributional style. Participants with an Unsupportive attributional style had more extreme beliefs about their classmate's control over the reason for need, as evidenced in the more polarized ratings of personal control in the two treatments conditions, demonstrating the utility of considering individual differences in causal perceptions affecting helping behavior."
## [381] "Content Validity: The semantic equivalence rate was 97%. The content validity index (CVI) was 95%. Construct Validity: The interpretation of the two components was consistent with the proposed factor structures of the original RS-14 (English version). Also, there was a moderate positive correlation between scores on the Chinese RS-14 and self-esteem scores (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). Convergent and Discriminant Validity: The correlation coefficients among items within personal competence and acceptance of self and life ranged from 0.62–0.85 and 0.71–0.83, respectively. In addition, there was a moderate negative correlation between personal competence and acceptance of self and life (r = 0.38, n = 1816, p < 0.01)."
## [382] "Convergent validity: Both HCAT subscales were positively associated with depression and anxiety in the full sample (n = 1848), demonstrating good convergent validity."
## [383] "Predictive Validity: Structural equation analysis was used to assess a measurement model. Adequate model fit was demonstrated: chi-square (325, n = 712) = 683.91, p < .001, chi-square /df = 2.10; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.041; RMSEA = 0.039 (90% CI = 0.035–0.044). Measurement model robustness was also supported. Additional results reported explained variances of 15% for autonomy need satisfaction, 20% for competence need satisfaction, 10% for relatedness need satisfaction, and 28% for intrinsic motivation. As a whole, these results support the instrument’s predictive validity."
## [384] "Convergent Validity: The EFA sample (n = 813) compared correlations between the CORSI factors, the VOCI (Thordarson et al., 2004), and the BAI (Beck & Steer, 1993), where positive correlations indicate convergent validity (Hinkin, 1988). The results showed that most factors correlated moderately strongly with both the VOCI and the BAI. Convergent validity was also assessed with the BDI-II (Beck et al., 1996), with results showing the O-SR and C-SR factors correlating moderately strongly. Divergent Validity: The correlations between the CORSI and RSES (Rosenberg, 1965), based on theorized negative relations between RS and self-esteem, used the EFA sample. Results showed low to moderate negative correlations between RSES and CORSI total score (r = –.43, p < .001), O-G factor score (r = –.42, p < .001), C-GP factor score (r = –.23, p < .001), C-GA factor score (r = –.16, p < .001), O-SR factor score (r = –.32, p < .001) and C-SR factor score (r = –.42, p < .001)."
## [385] "Content Validity: After controlling for age and sex, the mean patient-rated AFQ score for the geriatrics consult clinic was significantly higher than that for the comparison PCPs (19.3 vs 15.6; P < .001), providing support for content validity. Convergent Validity: Respondents to Survey 1 provided AFQ scores that correlated positively with their “quality of chronic care” total scores (r = .87; P < .001) and with their scores on each of the three “quality of chronic care” subscales: goal setting, r = .82, P < .001; activation, r = .79, P < .001; and coordination, r = .72, P < .001, supporting the convergent validity of the AFQ. Predictive Validity: The mean AFQ score for respondents who indicated they would “definitely recommend” their PCPs to others (n = 768) was 19.8 compared with a mean AFQ score of 13.4 for respondents who indicated they were “somewhat likely” or “unlikely” to recommend their PCPs (n = 66)."
## [386] "Face and Content Validity: Participant selection for face and content validity testing was based on the selection method used in the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank (CAMB), which matches participants according to age, gender, ethnicity, cohabitation status, and socioeconomic status. The informants (total: n = 31) were assessed by individual interviews (n = 10) and focus group discussions (FGDs: n = 21). In general, the informants agreed that the CSRQ covers relevant aspects of social relations in a simple and useful way, among others, due to the role of specific items on different types of social support (emotional, instrumental) and relational strain (conflict, demands, worries). Also, the informants found the language used to be clear, and the number of response categories satisfactory."
## [387] "Convergent Validity: The two versions of the QuickSort had satisfactory to good convergent validity (Sorting ICC = 0.72; Explanation ICC = 0.86; Total ICC = 0.84). Discriminant Validity: The likelihood of community-dwelling older adults and inpatients (n = 260) being impaired on either the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) or Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB; Dubois et al., 2000), or both, increased by a factor of 3.75 for QuickSort Total scores of less than 10 and reduced by a factor of 0.23 for scores of 10 or greater. Sensitivity and Specificity: A cut-score of less than 4 correctly classified 84% of participants, with 43% sensitivity and 94% specificity."
## [388] "Construct Validity: Factor analysis was used to assess construct validity. Convergent Validity: Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the BEACS' scores and those of the Beliefs About Psychological Services (BAPS; Ægisd ottir & Gerstein, 2009), an 18-item measure of beliefs about seeking professional services for psychological concerns. Using the study 2 sample (N = 283) to assess the 28-item BEACS, results showed the BEACS scores moderately correlating with the BAPS's subscale scores. Criterion Validity: The BEACS' factors were examined for their ability to discriminate between persons, with and without prior use of counseling. Tests were conducted using between-subjects ANOVA, with gender and prior counseling experience as the independent variables. The results showed that while the main effect for prior counseling experience was significant, there was no significant effect for gender (F [1, 279] = .358, p = .55]."
## [389] "Convergent validity: Convergent validity was demonstrated by moderate positive correlation between total BM DJGLS loneliness score and UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS‐8; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987) (r = 0.56, n = 81, P < 0.001). Significant associations were found between loneliness and sex, ethnicity, geographic area, and marital status."
## [390] "Convergent/Divergent Validity: Findings indicated good convergent and divergent validity when assessed with symptom measures of worry, depression, and anxiety. These results showed that the significant correlation between the intolerance of uncertainty and worry still remained after partialing out anxiety and depression (r = 0.44, 0.43, 0.41; p < 0.001, N = 940; when controlling for anxiety, depression and both anxiety and depression, respectively). Furthermore, analyses demonstrated that intolerance of uncertainty contributed significantly to worry, even after controlling for demographic variables and levels of anxiety and depression."
## [391] "Test Validity: The mean value for participants’ own assessment of active aging was 7.77 (SD 1.70), and for occupational therapist’s assessment, 8.71 (SD 1.74). The correlation between these two assessments was r = .508 (p < .001, n = 44). The higher were the occupational therapist’s assessment and the participants’ own assessment of their active aging, the higher were the scores in the UJACAS scale."
## [392] "Content Validity: In Phase 1, Experts reviewed the item pool, with over 80% having rated the items as \"agreed\"or \"strongly agreed\" regarding the focus of each item. In Phase 2, the items were reviewed by a group of community-based end users (n = 10), who participated in audio-recorded think-aloud (i.e., cognitive interviewing) face-to-face interviews via desktop computer. While participants believed the items to be straightforward, they also identified problematic items. Minor wording adjustments and further item refinement established content validity."
## [393] "Construct Validity: The EVQ scores were tested for initial construct validity via experimentally manipulating evaluative attitudes toward violent behavior using persuasive messaging and evaluative conditioning. The authors combined the two experimental conditions (n = 233) and the two control conditions (n = 235) to compare posttest EVQ scores across all participants. Mean posttest EVQ scores were shown to be significantly lower in the experimental condition (M = 1.77, SD = 0.70) than in the control condition (M = 2.01, SD = 0.65; d = −0.36, 95% CI [−0.54, −0.17]). Taken together, the results provided initial evidence for the construct validity of EVQ scores."
## [394] "Face/Content Validity: Face/content validity obtained by the expert committee for the SAS-Pr was high. Experts considered the measure to be useful in assessing addiction to smartphone use. Additionally, the subjects of pretest assessment (N=50) found the scale to be complete in terms of their requirements and it was conclusive."
## [395] "Content Validity: Subject matter experts (SMEs; N = 13) who were graduate students at a Canadian Industrial-Organizational Psychology program sorted a total of 44 items into Personalized or Socialized nPower. Items with less than 75% agreement from the SMEs were removed. However, because most of the misclassified items were reverse-coded items, additional reverse-coded items were created for a total of 33 initial items."
## [396] "Construct Validity: Undergraduate participants (n = 56) completed the 11-item IS, together with the Adolescent Decision Making Questionnaire (ADMQ; Mann, Harmoni, & Power, 1989; Tuinstra et al., 2000), the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meye et al., 1990), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, 1967). Contrary to expectations, no correlation was seen between the IS and the ADMQ impulsivity scale. But in line with expectations, the IS correlated with all four psychopathology scales. Predictive Validity: The scores on the 11-item IS were correlated with the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; Buhr & Dugas, 2002), using a sample of individuals (n = 39) in a blue or red straw identification/inference task. The results indicated that the IS exclusively predicted the number of straws in the inference task (standardized beta = .44, p < .01) and in the identification task (β = .32, p < .05)."
## [397] "Convergent/Discriminant Validity: The convergent relations of the FEMT with accurately linguistically labeling emotions, that is, ρ(FEMT, DANVA-F [adult version; Nowicki & Duke, 2001]) = .89 (p < .01), ρ(FEMT, PEI-Faces) = .53 (p < .01) were higher than the discriminant relation of the FEMT with rating smileys with reference to pictures of art and landscapes, that is, ρ(FEMT, PEI-Pictures) = .28 (p < .01): ρ = .89 versus ρ = .28, N = 344, z = 15.31, p < .01; ρ = .53 versus ρ = .28, N = 344, z = 5.75, p < .01. Criterion/Incremental Validity: The FEMT correlated with manifest and latent measures of social astuteness (ρ = .22, p < .05) and adaptive performance (ρ = .19, p < .05). The FEMT even showed incremental validity in predicting coworker ratings of targets’ social astuteness (ρ = .22, p < .05, one-tailed) above and beyond the DANVA2-F, sex, and age, despite being substantially correlated with the DANVA2-F. These findings support the FEMT’s criterion validity in the work context."
## [398] "Content Validity: Expert panel and graduate student review established content validity. Construct Validity: Exploratory factor analysis via principal component analysis assessed construct validity. Concurrent Validity: The FIES:CI was correlated with the PPUS-FM (Mishel, 1990; Mishel & Epstein, 1997). The results showed correlation between the PPUS-FM and the NI factor as +.591 (p < .001); correlation was nonsignificant for the PPUS-FM and the positive integration factor (PI). This (NI and PPUS-FM) was in an expected direction of relationship, and there was not an expected positive relationship between PI and the PPUS-FM. Discriminant Validity: Within the sample (n = 157), discriminant validity was demonstrated by the effect of illness type (physiologic or psychosocial CI), F(1, 155) = 7.09; p < .05, on the FIES:CI sum score. Psychosocial illnesses were cognitive, behavioral, and psychiatric conditions (n = 26); physiologic illnesses (n = 131) were comprised of an array of illnesses."
## [399] "Convergent Validity: The instrument was tested in a sample of undergraduate and graduate students (n = 168) at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom) at Time 1 (T1), during the day of their graduation ceremony, and at Time 2 (T2), at 4–9 months after T1. The results showed Anticipated nostalgia at T1 was positively associated with perceived meaningfulness of university life, r (166) = .51, p < .001, and the intention to preserve pleasant memories for later recollection, r(147) = .43, p < .001. Predictive Validity: Anticipated nostalgia that assessed the extent to which it predicted nostalgia and psychological functioning a few months after the life transition occurred, was demonstrated in convergent validity results, as T1 predicted stronger nostalgia at T2, r(66) = .56, p < .001."
## [400] "Construct Validity: Bivariate analysis was conducted on a representative sample of the UK population (n = 868), to observe the DCI's relationship with socioeconomic and sociodemographic variables (i.e, gender, income, education, and geographical location) that affect Internet access, usage, and proficiency. The results showed all of these variables, except for gender, to be related to Digital Capital, supporting construct validity. Additionally, the results of the EFA conducted on the Digital Competence Index also supports construct validity."
## [401] "Predictive Validity: The 7 items retained from the screening subsample (n = 4,620) were used in a second binary logistic regression as predictors, with the criterion for inclusion being a statistically significant increment to the explained variance. The results found that 5 of the 7 predictor items produced a statistically significant addition (20%) to the explained variance, appearing in the equation as follows: Chi-square (5, N = 4620) = 597.40, p < .001, Nagelkerke R² = .20. The 5 items were drawn from 3 different CPQ scales (i.e., Commitment, Academic Conscientious, and Social Integration)."
## [402] "Content Validity: Following several discussions, an exclusion consensus was reached and items considered irrelevant were rejected. Construct/Discriminant Validity: The results found a modest correlation between items. There was significant correlation between the felt stigma scale and enacted stigma scale among patients (Spearman's r = 0.892; p = 0.000; N = 150) and within the community (Spearman's r = 0.794; p = 0.000)."
## [403] "Content Validity: Following several discussions, an exclusion consensus was reached and items considered irrelevant were rejected. Construct/Discriminant Validity: The results found a modest correlation between items. There was significant correlation between the felt stigma scale and enacted stigma scale among patients (Spearman's r = 0.892; p = 0.000; N = 150) and within the community (Spearman's r = 0.794; p = 0.000)."
## [404] "Face Validity: Face validity was established based on focus group discussions with members of the target population. Content Validity: Universal agreement of scale-level content validity was given by the expert reviewers using the method recommended by Polit and Beck (2006). Construct Validity: Construct validity of the SPPI was established based on the findings of CFA. Discriminant Validity: Discriminant validity was supported by negative correlations between children’s perception of peer support (PPSS; Ladd et al., 1996) and each latent factor of the SPPI. Convergent validity was supported by a moderate correlation between the screening item of the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ; Olweus, 1996) and the two latent factors of the eight-item SPPI (overt and social victimization) (n = 331, rs =.533)."
## [405] "Construct Validity: An exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), were used to assess construct validity. Concurrent Validity: The MSQ was tested by correlating MSQ factors with the internalization and externalization scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; Achenbach et al., 2014) and with the Self-Representation Questionnaire (Silva, Martins, & Calheiros, 2016) dimensions in a subsample of children and adolescents (n = 203; 52.7% boys; ages 8-16 years) and their parents/caregivers. The results showed that physical and psychological abuse and psychological neglect were positively correlated with children's and adolescents' externalizing problems (r = .37, p < .001; r = .18, p = .020)."
## [406] "Content validity: The authors observed that the majority of the items obtained I-CVI above 0.9 (n = 43). The authors also observed the mean I-CVI (S-CVI/AVE) of 0.94 for the instrument as a whole, which meant that the content of the instrument made it possible to measure that which it proposed to measure."
## [407] "Construct Validity: Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) were used to assess construct validity, with the sample (n = 807) randomly split between these approaches. Nomological Validity: The relationship of the KST construct with other constructs was examined to determine the nomological validity, and the prediction of output indicators by the KST was evaluated by structural equation modeling (SEM). The results showed the KST to be associated with outcome indicators, and with related variables (i.e., seniority and research fields). Convergent Validity: The convergent validity was calculated on the basis of the results obtained in the CFA, which showed that the items comprising the KST scale were significantly and strongly correlated with the latent variable they were assumed to measure."
## [408] "Test Validity: The ETUQ was assessed for Internal Scale Validity by taking into account both the infit and outfit statistics. The results showed that 82 (95%) of the initial 86-item ETUQ demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit to the Rasch rating scale model. The results indicate that overall, the ETUQ demonstrated acceptable internal scale validity. The ETUQ was also assessed for Person Response Validity using the sample (n = 157). For 152 participants (97%), acceptable goodness-of-fit to the Rasch rating scale model was demonstrated, indicating acceptable person response in this sample of older adults with or without cognitive deficits."
## [409] "Content Validity: Following several discussions, an exclusion consensus was reached and items considered irrelevant were rejected. Construct/Discriminant Validity: The results found a modest correlation between items. There was significant correlation between the felt stigma scale and enacted stigma scale among patients (Spearman's r = 0.892; p = 0.000; N = 150) and within the community (Spearman's r = 0.794; p = 0.000)."
## [410] "Content Validity: Following several discussions, an exclusion consensus was reached and items considered irrelevant were rejected. Construct/Discriminant Validity: The results found a modest correlation between items. There was significant correlation between the felt stigma scale and enacted stigma scale among patients (Spearman's r = 0.892; p = 0.000; N = 150) and within the community (Spearman's r = 0.794; p = 0.000)."
## [411] "Test Sensitivity and Specificity: The sensitivity and specificity scores of .90 and .71 are comparable with average findings of many accepted validity screens (e.g., Martin et al., 2019; Walls et al., 2017). The ROC curve for Structure established the score above which an individual was likely to be feigning. This second curve established a cutoff of 4.5, with an AOC of .70, p < .001. The ROC curve for Atypicality established a cutoff of 5.5, above which an individual was judged to be feigning. For inconsistency, there was insufficient variance to apply the ROC procedure. Chi-squares established that 3.7% (n = 5) of the honest control group, 22% (n = 22) of the feigning group and 5% (n = 2) of the PTSD group endorsed at least one inconsistency item. None of DD cases had a positive inconsistency score."
## [412] "Construct Validity: Examining the scale using a multitrait, multimethod (MTMM) matrix design demonstrated construct validity. Convergent Validity: The average variance extracted (AVE) showed that 18 of 24 possible values for AVE exceeded the convergent validity criterion of 0.50, while two others were close to 0.50. Discriminant Validity: Examining the correlations, the mean, standard deviation, and reliability for each factor across all 5 countries showed all correlation values to be under the 0.90 threshold required for discriminant validity. Nomological Validity: Data collected from Apple (n = 102) and Samsung (n = 100) mobile phone users in the UK were used to test nomological validity and managerial implications. Results for the Samsung users showed, as hypothesized, that product quality and the material self significantly interacted to influence brand love (b = − 0.10 t = − 2.25), with brand love fully mediating the effects of product quality and the material self on loyalty."
## [413] "Criterion Validity: For the Cross-Validation sample, frequencies demonstrated that 61.7% (n = 192) of the sample positively endorsed at least one of the SD behavioral domain items. Convergent Validity: For the Cross-Validation sample, all the SD behavioral domain scales and scores were positively correlated with CMAI‐SF (Cohen‐Mansfield et al., 1995) and ABS (Perlman & Hirdes, 2008), except for the Inability to Inhibit and Overly Flirtatious scales. The SDi scores were positively correlated with ZBI‐12 (Bédard et al., 2001; Zarit, Todd, & Zarit, 1986). Discriminant Validity: For the Cross-Validation group, sleepiness and pain self‐efficacy were uncorrelated with the SD domain scales and scores."
## [414] "Criterion Validity: Data was gathered on a sample of consecutive stroke patients (n = 302) who were admitted to an acute tertiary care hospital and followed up for 6 months. Across all stroke measures, the results showed significant association with the FOIS, supporting criterion validity. Consensual Validity: Agreement was evaluated with predefined scale rankings by 63 dysphagia clinicians (speech-language pathologists). The results showed that agreement with the predefined scale scores ranged from 81% to 98%. The Kendall concordance was .90."
## [415] "Concurrent Validity: The total analytic sample (n = 447) was tested for concurrent validity through correlation analyses between the Scale of ESE, the SESS-14 (Hetling, Hoge & Postmus, 2016), the Financial Strain Survey (Aldana & Liljenquist, 1998; Hetling, Stylianou & Postmus, 2015), and the item measuring participants' difficulty with income. The results showed the Scale of ESE to be negatively correlated with the overall Financial Strain Survey and all five of its subscales, and also negatively correlated with the difficulty with income item (r = −.285, p < .01). The Scale of ESE was positively correlated with the overall SESS-14 scale and all three of its subscales."
## [416] "Convergent Validity: For the factors, the average variance extracted (AVE) scores overall met or exceeded the required value of .50, establishing convergent validity. Discriminant Validity: The PBE scale was assessed for discriminant validity via its maximum shared variance (MSV), which must be lower than the AVE, and the square root of the AVE, which must be greater than the interconstruct correlations (Hair et al., 2014). With the exception of Brand appeal and Brand differentiation in a sample of Dutch business administration students (n = 2470), the MSVs for all of the PBE scale’s factors were lower than the respective AVE values. Moreover, the square root of the AVE exceeded the correlations between the scales. Collectively, the results offered proof of discriminant validity. Criterion Validity: A series of hierarchical regression analyses on the PBE scale showed results that explained a significant part of the variance in perceived employability and perceived career success."
## [417] "Content Validity: An expert panel of inclusion practitioners/researchers and HR managers/directors assessed the initial 14 items for content validity. Their feedback resulted in item refinement and reduction, with 10 items being retained for further analysis. These actions lent support for content validity. Convergent Validity: The first-wave sample (n = 346) was used to examine the correlations between perceived LGBT supportive practices (captured by the final eight item measure), extent of disclosure, and perceived heterosexism in the workplace. The results showed that perceived LGBT supportive practices was positively related to extent of disclosure (r = .23, p < .001) and negatively related to perceived heterosexism (r = −.47, p < .001)."
## [418] "Criterion-Related Validity: Correlation analysis was conducted for the total CAM score and the ASC factor (combined score of the first seven items) measuring difficulty expressing feelings (Fukunishi et al., 1998). The correlation was .73 (n = 131). Contrasted-Groups Validity: Mean CAM scores (after unit weighing) were analyzed for differences in several subgroups (i.e., gender, ethnicity, and reported history of other behavioral and related problems). These comparisons represent contrasted groups validity evidence and support the utility of the CAM in differentiating between these groups."
## [419] "Convergent Validity: There were significant positive correlations between the actual, felt, and ideal BIMTM‐MB scores and the respective Bodybuilder Image Grid‐Original (BIG‐O; Hildebrandt et al., 2004) scores within the same dimensions of the two scales. Criterion Validity: Perceived ideal BIMTM‐MB muscularity scores correlated significantly positively (rs = .15; p = .025; n = 165; one‐tailed), and perceived ideal BIMTM‐MB body fat scores correlated significantly negatively (rs = −.16; p = .024; n = 165; one‐tailed) with self‐reported frequency of physical training."
## [420] "Convergent validity: APA bias scores were positively associated with the % of time spent sedentary during the free-choice play period (r = 0.38, p = 0.004, n = 60), independent of age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Criterion validity: Associations with adiposity and fitness were in similar directions to previous epidemiological reports of objectively-measured activity [3, 5, 6] and enhance the clinical meaningfulness of the APA bias scores in pediatric health research."
## [421] "Convergent/Discriminant Validity: PMH was significantly positively correlated with social support and with post-traumatic growth (both: p < .001). Its correlation with depressive symptoms, PTSD and suicide-related outcomes was significantly negative (all: p < .001). Furthermore, participants with greater suicide risk (SBQ-R [Osman et al., 2001; Amini-Tehrani et al., 2020] ≥ 7; n = 146, 25.5%) and participants with lower suicide risk (SBQ-R < 7, n = 427, 74.5%) differ significantly in PMH scores: SBQ-R ≥ 7: M (SD) = 11.22 (6.27), SBQ-R < 7: M (SD) = 16.83 (5.47), t (225) = 9.627, p < .001."
## [422] "Convergent Validity: All factor loadings reached a significant level (β = .41~.86, p < .01), providing evidence of convergent validity. Discriminant Validity: The results showed significant differences between the proposed four-factor model and all six nested models (chi-square (1, N = 237) from 151.71 to 392.26), providing evidence of discriminant validity."
## [423] "Concurrent Validity: The correlations of the RAY functioning index at Month 6 with SAPS (Andreasen, 1984) (−0.156, p = .024, N = 209); SANS (Andreasen, 1983) (−0.208, p = .003, N = 206); and GAF (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) (0.276, p < .001, N = 209) were significant."
## [424] "Convergent Validity: The Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM) used to evaluate 4 overlapping factors (i.e., prevention, escape, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance), was also used to assess convergent validity with a different sample (n = 513). The results showed that 3 of the 4 factors (prevention, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance) demonstrated good convergent validity; the exception was the escape factor. In line with predictions, participants who found the experience of disgust more aversive (disgust sensitivity) were also more likely to report that they want to prevent experiencing disgust and engage in disgust-avoiding behaviors and cognitions."
## [425] "Discriminant Validity: In using the Mann–Whitney U-test to compare cases and controls, results showed evidence of discriminant validity. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: A multivariate analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable was the presence/absence of excessive menstrual loss (EML); the independent variables were the answers given for each of the 21 initial items. The analysis was conducted for 70% of the sample (training set), with the remaining 30% used as a confirmatory sample (validation set). Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve was calculated and area under the curve (AUC) was derived to measure discrimination. The results showed that for cases with Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart-confirmed (PBAC; Higham, O’Brien, & Shaw,1990) excessive menstrual loss (EML; n = 211) and controls (n = 153), 6 items met the model’s criteria; together they yielded a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 89.5% in identifying cases and controls."
## [426] "Concurrent Validity: The MM-PHQ-9 demonstrated good concurrent validity with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology (QIDS-SR-16; Rush et al., 2003), and excellent internal consistency. Concurrent validity between the paper and mobile app versions of the MM-PHQ-9 was r = 0.67. Test Responsiveness: Sensitivity to change over a 14-week period was d = 0.41 compared with d = 0.61 on the QIDS-SR-16. Sensitivity and Specificity: The sensitivity of the MM-PHQ-9 cut-off score of ≥10 was 98.7% (true positives: n = 77 out of 78 participants with MDD), with a specificity of 100.0% (true negatives: n = 43 out of 43 control participants), positive predictive value of 100.0% (true positives: n = 77 out of the sum of True and False Positives (n = 77)) and negative predictive value of 97.7% (true negatives: n = 43 out of the sum of true and false negatives (n = 44))."
## [427] "Content/Face Validity: In pre-testing, no subject demonstrated any problem in understanding the MFIS-PD/BR confirming the content and face validity. Convergent Validity: Convergent validity of MFIS-PD/BR was established with the FSS and PFS-16, suggesting a moderate level of association. Divergent Validity: The adequate divergent validity was established between MFIS-PD/BR and motor and non-motor symptoms, cogni tive performance, disease severity, anxiety, and depression. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the cut-off point for MFIS-PD/BR to detect fatigue in PD subjects (n=70). Sensitivity=79.2%; 1-Specificity=80%; Standard error=0.05; Accuracy=0.83 [0.72–0.91] (p<0.001)."
## [428] "Item Response Theory: The final item set of the Y-BAT met the core Rasch assumptions, including unidimensionality and local independence. In other words, the final set of the test items measured a single dominant measurement construct, and the test items were not dependent on another (local independence) when assessing bilateral upper extremity function. Construct Validity: The means of the person measures and item difficulties were located within 0.5 logits. While the person-item map only represents the mean of each test item, the rating scales of the test items covered a wide range of the person measure distribution. Finally, the instrument had neither the ceiling (n = 1, 1%) nor the floor (n = 4, 4%) effects."
## [429] "Content Validity: Content validity of the DUIC questionnaire was established through expert panel consensus (n = 3 PhD level researchers with backgrounds in survey research, fitness to drive, and cannabis use). Face Validity: Participants in the face validity testing indicated that the overall questionnaire was clear, easy to follow. Construct Validity: Principal component analysis provided evidence of construct validity."
## [430] "Test Sensitivity/Specificity: In ROC analyses, the PATHOS correctly categorized individuals in the male patient sample (n=625; residential treatment and outpatient samples combined) and healthy volunteer sample (n=47) 83.3% of the time. Using the cutoff score of 3, the PATHOS correctly identified 69.6% of the patient sample (sensitivity) and 80.9% of the healthy volunteer sample (specificity). In ROC analyses of the sample of women (outpatient n = 85; college n = 156), the PATHOS correctly categorized 81.4% of the sample overall. Using the cutoff score of 3, the PATHOS correctly identified 65.9% of the patient sample (sensitivity) and 91.0% of the healthy sample (specificity)."
## [431] "Convergent/Known-Group Validity: CCS total score showed weak positive correlations with CBT-KQ and Exposure Therapy Knowledge (r=.04, p=0.585 and r=.18, p=.02, respectively); the Objective CBT Knowledge subscale had moderate correlations with these measures (r=.31, p<.001 and r=.27, p <.001, respectively), among the cohorts recruited through Facebook advertisement and WISD training (n=190). CCS total score was positively correlated with prior graduate training in CBT (rpb=.27, p<.001), and with overall confidence in CBT (rpb=.35, p<.001), among all participants (n=387). CCS total scores were also significantly higher among those with confidence in using CBT (t356=7.11, p<.001) and those with graduate training in CBT (t362=5.41, p<.001). All CCS subscales except for Knowledge showed similar relationships."
## [432] "Concurrent Validity: Evidence supporting concurrent validity of the CtC was established by an examination of the association between attachment security and attachment-related aspects of functioning, such as depressive symptoms. Results of SEM indicated that of all hypothesized structural pathways, the latent factors Trust and Alienation were significant and negatively related to the level of depressive symptoms. Convergent Validity: The Trust subscale of the CtC measure correlated significantly with the Trust subscale of the original IPPA (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) (r = .77, p < .001, N=551)."
## [433] "Known-Group Validity: Known-groups validity was supported for two domains of the SWAL-QOL-FC (burden and eating duration), but there was no difference in the dysphagia symptom battery (DSB) scores. In the SWAL-QOL validation study with a U.S. OPMD population (n = 113), burden and eating duration had the lower scores, which is consistent with our results, and they were correlated with dysphagia duration (R = − 0.29 and − 0.30, respectively, p < 0.01). Known-groups validity was not supported for the composite score (57.1 ± 15.8 versus 66.2 ± 12.3), while it was found to differentiate participants with long or short dysphagia duration in Youssof study (composite score = 50.4 ± 19.6 versus 59.9 ± 21.2 (mean ± SD), p = 0.02)."
## [434] "Convergent Validity: CTSOQ scores moderately correlated with tinnitus severity (TFI), anxiety (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006), depression (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2011), sleep disturbance (ISI; Bastien et al., 2001), and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L and EQ VAS; Rabin de Charro, 2001). Known-Groups Validity: SOs of individuals with a severe tinnitus problem (i.e., an overall TFI score > 50) obtained significantly higher CTSOQ scores (Median = 47; IQR = 20.5; n = 110) compared to those with a mild or significant tinnitus problem (Median = 30; IQR = 21.5; n = 84) as shown in the Mann-Whitney U test [U (194) = 2.18, z= -6.0, p < 0.001]. Test Interpretability: A CTSOQ cut-off score of 26.5 provided the best accuracy for the distinction of mild problems (sensitivity 76%, specificity 85%). A CTSOQ cut-off score of 39.5 provided the best accuracy for the distinction of significant problems (sensitivity 71%, specificity 68%)."
## [435] "Parallel Validity: Parallel validity was confirmed for all relationships (p > 0.3). Convergent Validity: The ability to distinguish individuals (N = 390) who are healthy and individuals suffering from anxiety (n = 141) or depression (n = 223) has been proven for the scales EQLQ-S_DOM1 (D = 0.670), EQLQ-S_DOM2 (D = 0.670), EQLQ-S_DOM3 (D = 0.507), and EQLQ-S non-medical scale (D = 0.653)."
## [436] "Structural Validity: Structural validity was established based on the findings of a principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion-related Validity: The results showed that the GDSS was positively related to the Internet Addiction Test (IAT; Frangos, Frangos, & Sotiropoulos, 2012). Also, findings showed that the GDSS score was positively correlated with the clinical diagnosis of GD, and the probability of diagnosis increased by 4% for every point higher in the GDSS score (n = 193, OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.08). Test Sensitivity/Specificity: Findings suggested that the cut-off point for GDSS to present a high risk of gaming disorder was above or equal to 47 (sensitivity, 41.4%; specificity, 82.3%)."
## [437] "Concurrent/Discriminant Validity: The results, based on analysis of the pooled data (n = 461), demonstrate that the brand awe construct was well correlated with but distinct from surprise (“be surprised by it,” r = .70, p < .001; AVEawe = .67 > r2), wonder (“make me feel wonder,” r = .72, p < .001; AVEawe = .66 > r2), and happiness (“be happy,” r = .81, p < .001; AVEawe = .67 > r2). Incremental Validity: The results indicate that adding the brand awe construct in the second block led to significant increases in R² for approach behavior (ΔR² = .10, p < .05) and DSS (ΔR² = .10, p < .05). Criterion Validity: The results demonstrate the significant influence of each antecedent on brand awe and the impact of brand awe on approach behavior and Desire to save and share (DSS)."
## [438] "Concurrent Validity: SDS-G scores were positively correlated with scores on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996; r=.651, N=244, p <.0001), and negatively correlated with the scores of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RES; Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001; r=-.704, N=244, p<.0001), and the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ; Marsh et al., 1984; r=-.507, N=232, p <.0001)."
## [439] "Convergent validity: The directions and significance of the associations were as hypothesized. The FRQ correlated negatively with the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES; Milsom et al., 2014) total score (Spearman’s ρ = −0.61, p < .001, n = 229, R2 = .372). There was a negative correlation between the FRQ and the Forensic Inpatient Quality of Life Questionnaire--Short Version (FQL-SV; Schel et al., 2017, Vorstenbosch et al., 2014) (Spearman’s ρ = −0.72, p < .001, n = 229, R2 = .518). These associations are classed as moderate to strong (Dancey & Reidy, 2014)."
## [440] "Criterion Validity: Criterion validity with well-established indicators of depressive symptomology and perceived distress was found and consistent with expectations. Convergent/Discriminant Validity: Validity testing was conducted using bivariate correlations. The divorced S2 subsample (n= 149) reported significantly lower levels of overt conflict (t = 3.79, p < .001), self-controlled covert conflict (t = 5.71, p < .001), and externally-controlled covert conflict (t = 4.14, p < .001), compared to non-divorced S2 subsample (n = 221). In the divorced S2 subsample support was negatively linked with overt conflict (r = − .17, p = .02) and positively linked with the amount of co-parental cooperation (r = .63, p < .001)."
## [441] "Construct Validity: All RISE-Q subscales (both original model and RISE-Q 15) were positively correlated with AEBQ-SR (Wardle & Carnell, 2009; Hunot et al., 2016) (missing data, N = 4) except Planned Amount."
## [442] "Convergent validity: Correlations with other instruments at baseline, were mostly medium. In Hebron: these were Clinical Global Impression (CGI‐S; Hilsenroth et al., 2000) rho = 0.48; Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; Guy, 1976) rho = -0.21; Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (DAS; Üstün, 2010) rho = 0.35. In Cauca these were: CGI‐S rho = 0.49; GAF rho = -0.48; DAS rho = 0.59). For greater interpretability, correlations included participants who had measures for all tests at baseline, n = 71 in Hebron and n = 84 in Cauca. Correlations were significant (p < 0.05) for all comparisons except with GAF in Hebron. Criterion validity: Results demonstrated a sensitivity of 85% in Hebron and 100% in Cauca, with corresponding specificity of 80% and 79%, when compared to CGI‐S."
## [443] "Content Validity: Content validity was 0.969 which was established by a panel of experts (n = 10)."
## [444] "Construct validity: Results showed that there was a strong, positive correlation between the reduced K-MPAI (Chang-Arana et al., 2018) and M-MPAS scores (r = 0.797, n = 100, p < 0.001) and had a large effect size (Cohen, 1992)."
## [445] "Convergent validity: Pearson correlations were calculated between the total values of ICS-N, ICS-D, ISI (Bastien et al., 2001), HADSA and HADS-D (Bjelland et al., 2002), TCQI-R (Ree et al., 2005), and item a) of TCQI-R. It was found that the two subscales of ICS were associated in a high and strong way, suggesting that the correlation follows the same direction (r = 0.79; p < 0.001) (Dancey & Reidy, 2017; Pallant, 2016). All correlations were positive and, as expected, the highest correlation coefficient was found between ICS-D and ICS-N (r = 0.79, p < 0.001) and the lowest was found between TCQI-R and HADS-D (r = 0.18, p < 0.001). Test Sensitivity and Specificity: Receiver Operating Characteristics curves were computed for both subscales, extracting the cut-off points based on optimal sensitivity (ICS-N = 75.9%; ICS-D = 65.9%) and specificity ICS-N = 75.6%; ICS-D = 77.8%) values."
## [446] "Convergent/Criterion Validity: The CPBI correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the CORAS (Spearman’s r = 0.21, N = 470) and with the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (0.27), respectively, indicating the concurrent validity of the scale."
## [447] "Test validity: Initial data exploration uncovered a sum score mean of 119.48, (SD = 14.85) and item mean of 4.12. Negative skew (-.97) and positive kurtosis (3.75) were found in NPSS sum scores. Known-groups validity: Independent sample t test revealed that there was no significant difference between genders on Social Engagement and Compassion subscales. Males (n = 92, M = 31.74, SD = 5.54) had significant lower scores than females (n = 217, M = 33.2581, SD = 4.36) on the Body Sensations subscale after correction for unequal variances (t [140.9] = 2.340, p = .021, Cohen’s d = .3, equal variances not assumed). Similar results were obtained after 1000 bootstrap samples (p = .026) to control for unequal sample sizes."
## [448] "Convergent and Discriminant: All the perceived value dimensions, two antecedents (brand trust and brand image) and one outcome variable (purchase intent) exhibited an acceptable level of convergent validity (AVE> .50; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and discriminant validity as the highest correlation was between emotional/functional value and curiosity value (.73). The associated confidence interval ranged from .68 to .78. Nomological validity: There was good model fit chi-square (df = 656, N = 221) = 1,433.983, p < .05, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .073. The effect of perceived value on purchase intent was positive and significant (β = .61; p < .01). Brand trust (β = .44; p < .01) and brand image (β = .46; p < .01) also had positive and significant effects on perceived value. Predictive validity: All dimensions were significant predictors of purchase intent, pester intent and willingness to recommend (friends). Monetary value did not predict willingness to recommend (family)."
## [449] "Criterion Validity: There was a strong, positive correlation between IBS-BRQ and the Cognitive Scale for Functional Bowel Disorders (CS-FBD; Toner et al., 1998) (r=.67, n=149, P<.001), and a medium strong correlation with the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WASA; Mundt et al., 2002) (r=.49, n=149, P<.001), IBS symptom severity (SSS; Francis, Morris, & Whorwell, 1997) (r=.33, n=149, P<.001), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS; Dowell & Biran, 1990) (r=.37, n=149, P<.001), and illness perceptions (IPQ consequences) (r=.49, n=149, P<.001). Face Validity: Two items of the scale had poor face validity and did not discriminate between IBS patients and healthy controls. These were therefore removed from the scale."
## [450] "Convergent and Discriminant validity: Results indicate that the RAU demonstrates promising convergent and divergent validity, with the exception of factor 2 (IC and LA), as results showed a medium significant positive correlation between the RAU measure and a measure of subjective happiness (r = 0.440, n = 185, p ≤ .000, CI 95%: −0.32 to 0.55), and medium significant negative correlation with a depression measure (r = −0.491, n = 366, p ≤ .000, CI 95%: −0.56 to −0.41) and a stress scale (r = −0.354, n = 380, p ≤ .000, CI 95%: −0.44 to −0.26). The RAU and anxiety had a low significant negative correlation (r = −0.294, n = 380, p ≤ .000, CI 95%: −0.38 to −0.20). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the RAU construct was distinct from the depression, anxiety, stress and happiness constructs, thereby suggesting that the RAU has satisfactory discriminant validity."
## [451] "Construct/Divergent Validity: Highly significant correlations between MDST and Geriatric Depression Scale short form (GDS-15; Yesavage et al., 1983) scores with large effect sizes were shown for the clinical (rs = -.68, p < .001, n = 36) and healthy (rs = -.52, p < .001, n = 293) groups as well as for the overall sample (rs = -.55, p < .001, n = 329). MDST and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005) scores were also significantly correlated in the healthy group (rs = .29, p < .001, n = 293) with a small effect size. No significant correlation between MDST and MoCA scores was observed in the clinical subgroup (rs = .18, p < .30, n = 36); the effect size was also small. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: For the clinical sample, ROC analysis determined a cut-off score of 10 for the MDST, with a sensitivity of .76 and a specificity of .67. For the healthy sample, a cut-off score of 11, with a sensitivity of .73 and a specificity of .67."
## [452] "Test Validity: The FAB-Ch showed a statistically significant association with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Tombaugh & McIntyre, 1992) (Pearson’s r=0.83; p<0.001, n=499) and other measures of executive function. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: With the matched sample, the established cutoff point was 13.5, showing a sensitivity of 80.8% and a specificity of 90.4%."
## [453] "Construct Validity: To further test for the construct validity of the brief RSES measure, a sample of active duty military personnel (n = 32) and civilian employees (n = 36) (sample 4) who had completed the original RSES, other existing measures of resilience, and several measures of burnout were used. For sample 4, the means (SD) for the 22-item Response to Stressful Experiences Scale (RSES; Johnson et al., 2011) and RSES-4 were 65.91 (12.35) and 13.14 (2.59), respectively."
## [454] "Convergent Validity: The NSS-P convergent validity was good concerning associations with other self-reported assessment of sleepiness, fatigue, and insomnia. Discriminant Validity: The NSS-P total score was lower in treated than in untreated patients (n = 68), with a mean difference of 3.71 ± 1.45. The total NSS-P score varied from 12 to 49 in untreated patients and from 1 to 45 in treated patients, showing no ceiling effect. Test Specificity/Sensitivity: The cutoff value to discriminate between untreated and treated patients was 24 of 54, according to the Youden Index maximum value (sensitivity 64.71%, 95% confidence interval 53.35–76.06; specificity 64.13%, 95% confidence interval 54.33–73.93). Test Responsiveness: The responsiveness of the NSS-P to pharmacologic treatment was satisfactory and sensitive enough to detect changes in symptoms after treatment."
## [455] "Face Validity: The pre-final version was tested for face validity through cognitive interviews with 11 nursing home residents, who did not report any major problems regarding comprehension of the instrument. One exception concerned item 5 for which the participants expressed difficulties with understanding the meaning of ‘other health care professional’. As such, due to nursing home residents’ daily contact with nurses and health care assistants, the expert group decided to replace ‘other health care professional’ with ‘the nursing staff’. Otherwise, the Danish version was found to be acceptable by the participants. Construct Validity: Of the nine hypothesized correlations, the proportion of correctly predicted correlations was 67% (n = 6) which was considered acceptable."
## [456] "Construct Validity: The Norwegian RTW-SE exhibited small to moderate negative correlations with measures of depression and anxiety, and was significantly different between subgroups of patients with different work status, supporting construct validity. Predictive Validity: Pre- and post-treatment RTW-SE scores significantly predicted full return to work at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Test Sensitivity/Specificity: Youden’s Index (J) identified that a cut-off point of 4.6 for the post-RTW-SE score provided the optimal discrimination between patients fully working or on sick leave post-treatment (sensitivity = 73.48%, specificity = 73.03%). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.79. Youden’s Index (J) identified that a cut-off point of 3.7 for the post-RTW-SE score provided optimal discrimination between patients (n = 145) on graded sick leave (partly working) or on full sick leave post-treatment (sensitivity = 68.04%, specificity = 66.67%). The AUC was 0.70."
## [457] "Construct Validity: Construct validity was good, with the CHOICE-SF mean score correlating positively with the Manchester Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA; Priebe et al., 1999) (r = .70, P < .001) and negatively with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et al., 1961) (r = −.70, P < .001, N = 68) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck et al., 1988) (r = −.52; P < .001; N = 68). Sensitivity to Change: The CHOICE-SF was highly sensitive to change with CBTp (df[68], t = −6.08, P < .001 [CI(95) = −2.19 to −1.10]) with a large effect size for change (Cohen’s d = −0.84 [CI(95) = −1.15 to −0.54]). In contrast, and in support of the specificity of change to the intervention, the comparison group who received no intervention experienced no significant change on the CHOICE-SF (df[43], t = −1.09, P = .28 [CI(95) = −1.09 to 0.20]; Cohen’s d = −0.15 [CI(95) = −0.57 to 0.27])."samplesizes <- records_wide$FactorAnalysis %>% str_match_all(regex("\\bn ?= ?(\\d+)", ignore_case = TRUE)) %>% map(~ as.numeric(.[,2]))
samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% table()## .
## 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 11 13 27 28 31 45 51 53 63
## 34 13 2 6 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
## 66 81 85 87 88 89 90 95 96 99 100 101 102 103 106 109
## 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3
## 112 113 114 116 118 119 120 122 125 126 127 129 130 132 133 135
## 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1
## 136 137 138 139 140 142 144 145 147 148 149 150 151 152 154 155
## 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 4 2 1
## 156 158 159 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 174
## 1 2 2 3 4 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
## 175 176 177 178 180 181 182 183 184 186 188 189 191 192 193 194
## 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 3 1
## 197 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213
## 5 2 7 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 3 6 3 1
## 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 226 227 229 230 231
## 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 4 1
## 232 234 235 236 237 238 240 241 242 243 245 246 247 248 249 250
## 2 1 4 7 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1
## 251 252 253 255 256 258 259 260 262 263 264 265 266 267 269 270
## 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 2 4 5
## 271 273 274 275 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288
## 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1
## 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 306 307 308 309 310
## 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 5 2 2 1 6 2
## 311 312 313 314 315 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 328
## 2 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 2 2 3
## 330 331 332 334 335 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 348 350 353
## 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 1
## 354 358 359 360 361 362 363 367 368 369 372 373 374 375 377 381
## 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
## 382 383 384 386 391 392 395 396 398 399 400 401 405 406 407 409
## 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 4 3 1 7 3 1 1 2 3
## 410 412 415 417 418 421 425 426 427 429 430 431 433 434 436 437
## 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 1
## 439 440 441 444 446 448 452 453 457 458 459 463 465 466 470 471
## 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
## 474 475 476 477 478 480 484 488 490 491 493 499 500 503 505 506
## 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
## 508 509 510 513 514 515 516 523 524 525 526 527 531 535 537 538
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
## 539 540 541 543 545 548 550 563 564 566 567 572 574 578 581 585
## 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
## 586 590 592 593 594 596 597 599 600 601 603 604 606 607 610 615
## 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 625 626 628 629 635 636 644 646 649 650 651 652 659 661 664 665
## 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
## 672 673 675 698 701 702 706 709 712 717 724 725 726 733 740 749
## 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 750 751 757 758 759 761 762 763 771 781 790 793 799 800 804 809
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 813 825 838 842 846 853 856 866 871 873 880 885 895 898 905 911
## 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 918 919 923 935 964 965 966 968 974 983 989 1003 1011 1019 1041 1057
## 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
## 1066 1074 1081 1104 1135 1149 1152 1203 1218 1223 1247 1251 1274 1285 1304 1324
## 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
## 1417 1435 1510 1512 1540 1599 1642 1647 1707 1719 1797 1934 1945 1947 1950 1973
## 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
## 2000 2031 2285 2331 2443 2463 2467 2533 2665 2774 3377 3774 3953 4591 4887 4962
## 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
## 5036
## 1samplesizes %>% unlist() %>% median()## [1] 303records_wide$FactorAnalysis[- (samplesizes %>% map_dbl(~ .[1]) %>% is.na() %>% which())]## [1] "EFA uncovered and CFA confirmed 3 distinct and reliable dimensions for student reports: Inattention, Hyperactivity, and Impulsivity. By contrast, EFA and CFA uncovered a reliable 2-dimension structure for the parent-report data. Factor structures replicated across genders (3 factors for the SRI, and 2 factors for the PRI). In addition, a separate, multigroup CFA found that the three-factor structure replicated across genders: χ²(189, N=1,079)=487.70, GFI=.94, CFI=.95, RMSEA=.040."
## [2] "The Spanish PTGI was tested by subjecting the data to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Thirteen of the original 21 items loaded differentially on three factors. Eight items failed to load differentially. The 13-item Spanish PTGI is said to be highly correlated with the 21-item original (Spearman’s rho = .982, Sig. 2-tailed = .000, N = 100). This finding indicates that no critical information has been lost by using the truncated version."
## [3] "Confirmatory factor analysis: When tested with CFA in AMOS, the hypothesized five-factor parent model (N = 505) converged and all estimates were within bounds. As was true for the teacher questionnaire results, the fit indices for the five-factor model for the parent questionnaire approached but did not meet conventional levels for good model fit, x2(265, N = ?) = 739.76, p < .001, TLI = .80, CFI = .82, RMSEA = .07."
## [4] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA with varimax rotation was conducted on the study 1 sample (n = 245). Results revealed a 4-factor solution that explained 50.4% of the variance."
## [5] "EFA: A scree plot of eigenvalues from the polychoric correlation matrix was strongly indicative of a one-factor solution for the set of 17 items from the SAAS. All items had factor loadings of at least |.75|, except one, which had a loading of .35 (corresponding to a communality estimate of only .12 with unexplained variance of .88). This item “I rarely get tense when I think others are evaluating my looks” was dropped from all subsequent analyses. CFA: A one-factor model for the 16 SAAS items fit the Sample 2 data well, χ²(104, N = 853) = 381.21; p < .001; RMSEA = .056; CFI = .99; TLI = .99. In addition, each item was associated with a large and statistically significant factor loading (all ps < .001). This one-factor model also fit the Sample 3 data well, χ²(104, N = 541) = 311.89; p < .001; RMSEA = .061; CFI = .99; TLI = .99, again with each item showing a strong factor loading."
## [6] "CFA: The 6-factor model showed acceptable fit indices with the Spanish-speaking exerciser sample: Chi-squared (215, N= 524)= 689.13, p= .00; Chi-squared/gl = 3.20; CFI= .91; IFI= .91; RMSEA= .06; SRMR= .06."
## [7] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Results yielded indicated good fit with the 4-factor MCQ model, x²(24, n = 490) = 32.20; RMSEA= 0.026 (90% confidence interval = 0.000–0.055), perfect fit p > 0.122, close fit p > 0.965."
## [8] "A confirmatory factor analysis performed on the American data obtained an acceptable goodness of fit for the five-factor model, X²(142, N = 270) = 552.37, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .957. A separate confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the Russian data, and it also yielded an acceptable goodness of fit for the five-factor model, X²(142, N = 270) = 275.24, GFI = .905. The five factors are as follows: 1. Problem-Solving (5 items), 2. Externalizing (5 items), 3. Social Support (4 items), 4. Drug Use (2 items), and 5. Rejuvenation (2 items)."
## [9] "Factor analysis findings showed evidence of three situational factors. The confirmatory factor analysis corroborated the three-factor model on an independent sample (N = 345)."
## [10] "The fit indexes for the hypothesized three-factor oblique model were acceptable to good, with both CFI and NNFI close to .95 and RMSEA close to .05 (and the upper limit of the RMSEA’s 90% CI below .08). Moreover, the three-factor oblique model showed a markedly better fit than the one-factor model (which did not show an acceptable fit). The S–B scaled χ2 difference test was significant, with χ2(3, N = 363) = 207.70, p <.001, indicating that the three-factor oblique model showed a significantly better fit than the one-factor model. The three-factor oblique model was accepted as the final model."
## [11] "A factor analysis was also computed (N = 222) using the varimax rotation method, which yielded four factors. Variance accounted for by each factor was 64.6%, 18.9%, 11.4%, and 5.2% for Factors 1-4, respectively. Item loading on Factor 1 reflects an individual's language familiarity, usage, and preferences (e.g., items 1 and 2). Factor 2 was composed of items that reflected an individual's ethnic identity and generation (e.g., Items 3,4,5,12). Factor 3 contained items related to reading, writing, and general cultural heritage and exposure (e.g., Items 13,17,18). Factor 4 consisted of items associated with ethnic interaction (e.g., Items 6,7)."
## [12] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal components analysis extracted an eight-factor solution, that mirrored the eight dimensions of adaptive performance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Comparison of the fit indices for the three models (i.e., 8-factors, one-factor, two-factors) suggests that the 8-factor model offers the best fit for the data, and chi-square difference tests also showed significant improvement in fit for the 8-factor model compared to the one-factor, chi-square (28, N = 1,715) = 20923, p < .001, and two-factor, chi-square (27, N = 1,715) = 4325, p < .001, alternatives."
## [13] "Principal Components Analysis: PCAs ultimately yielded a four-factor solution explaining 65.58% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final model displayed sound goodness of fit indexes—χ2(N=417, 169)=309.14, p<.05; CFI=.97; GFI=.94; IFI=.97; RMSEA=.04; AIC=403.35; CAIC=653.79. The four-factor model was more parsimonious and showed better fit to the data than two- and one-factor models."
## [14] "EFA: The final model explained 48.23% of the variance and comprised two factors, Autonomy Support and Structure were combined (8 items; referred as Autonomy- Supportive Structure); Involvement (5 items) was separate. Factor loadings ranged from .48 to .87. CFA: The two-factor model provided a good fit (χ² (64, n = 350) = 163.192, p < .001; CFI = .947; NNFI = .936; GFI = .932; RMSEA = .067, 90% confidence interval [CI] = .054, .079; SRMR = .044). All items were significant (p < .001) and factor loadings ranged from .50 to .84."
## [15] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded a one-factor solution with all factor loadings above .54. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA ran along with other study variables revealed satisfactory fit statistics (chi-squared (680, N = 230) = 1102.5, p < .001, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .90, comparative fit index (CFI) = .91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .052.)."
## [16] "Tinnitus sufferers (N = 116) attending a specialist out-patient tinnitus clinic responded to this questionnaire, and their responses were factor analysed, revealing three tinnitus coping styles. These were labelled: ‘maladaptive coping’, ‘effective coping’ and ‘passive coping’."
## [17] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA tested a 6-factor solution using the 'gamer' group (n = 2774) sample. The model showed optimal fit to the data (chi-square = 277.35, df=39, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.972; TLI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.047 [0.042–0.052] Cfit > 0.90; SRMR = 0.025). Alternatively, a one-factor model and a second-order factor model were also estimated. Results showed the 6-factor having superior fit compared to the one-factor model and the second-order factor model. Moreover, the 6-factor model had items with factor loadings higher than 0.70 within their respective factor. Correlations between factors ranged between 0.82 and 0.57. Measurement Invariance: In using configural invariance to measure whether the POGQ-SF was best described by a 6-factor structure for boys and girls, results showed that the configural invariance model fit the data reasonably well (RMSEA = 0.053, Cfit > 0.135, CFI = 0.952)."
## [18] "Factor analysis yielded a 3-factor structure: competence (3 items), autonomy (3 items), and relatedness (3 items). The measurement model of the three basic psychological needs, with three items each, yielded a very good fit, chi-squared (24, N = 210) = 42.00, p = .013 (comparative fit index [CFI] = .99; incremental fit index [IFI] = .99; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .024)."
## [19] "For the construct of time pressure, a measurement model was tested (confirmatory factor analysis, with equality restrictions to achieve measurement invariance over time), which fitted adequately: Chi square = 292.9, df = 108, RMSEA = 0.050, pclose = 0.450, SRMR = 0.046, Hoelter's N = 248. The explained variance of time pressure at age 29 by time pressure at age 26 was 17.0%."
## [20] "Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a final model in which items used to measure each of the 10 constructs were specified to load on their respective constructs. The hypothesized model was supported. Fit statistics indicated acceptable fit for the model, X²(774, N = 151) = 1702.59, p < .01 (RMSEA = .08; RMSEA 90% CI = .08-.09; CFI = .94; SRMR = .07)."
## [21] "The distinction between items measuring the two modes of identification (Attachment and Glorification) was verified with a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. The analysis was conducted on samples from Israel and from the United States. In both cultural groups the two-factor model of identification with the nation yielded adequate fit indices: χ²(103, N = 484) = 374.323, comparative fit index (CFI) = .93, in the American sample; χ²(206, N = 208) = 726.37, CFI = .87, in the Israeli sample."
## [22] "Principle factor analysis with varimax rotation method and Kaiser normalization in the current study (N=140) yielded two distinct factors (relevant and irrelevant) that explained 41% of the variance. Items 3, 10, and 13 cross-loaded on both factors and, therefore, were deleted resulting in a final 15-item scale."
## [23] "Confirmatory factor analysis: On the basis of these exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results, the ASPIRE measure was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the sample (N = 266). Results showed a good fit between the 9-item, 3-factor model and data (Χ2 = 57.36, df = 24, X2/df = 2.39, IFI = .97, NFI = .95, TLI = .94, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06). The metric (factor loadings) invariance across gender (male vs. female) was examined using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFAs) and compared the original measurement model with the measurement model with constraints (setting factor loadings to be equal) and found no significant differences in these two models."
## [24] "Fit statistics [χ2 (169, N = 531) = 564.03, p < .001, SRMR = 0.065, RMSEA = 0.066] were adequate for the two factors of Interpersonal and Intrapersonal skills for the PSIS. The factor Interpersonal skills consisted of 10 items with loadings ranging from .26 to .52. The factor Intrapersonal skills consisted of 10 items with loadings ranging from .34 to .76."
## [25] "The new measure was first tested on an independent sample of supervisors (N=119). Using an exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation, 4 factors (AC = Affective commitment; NC = Normative commitment; CC-sacrifices = Continuance commitment–perceived sacrifices; CC-alternatives = Continuance commitment–perceived lack of alternatives) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0—representing 16 items and reflecting the targeted commitment mindsets—were extracted from these data."
## [26] "In data from a construction (N = 266), and two replication samples (N = 147 students, N = 215 adults), a one-dimensional solution showed the best fit for the data."
## [27] "Exploratory factor analysis: Principal component analysis with oblique rotation of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence and School Performance Measure found 2 factors with eigen values greater than 1. The first (intelligence) had an eigen value of 2.32 and explained 38.63% of the total variance. The second (school performance) had an eigen value of 1.49 and explained 24.82% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 2-factor model: χ² = (42, N = 457) = 46.27, p = .300, CFI = .997, TLI = .995, RMSEA = .015. TLI = .995, RMSEA = .015."
## [28] "Based on an analysis of data provided by a Dutch panel (Time 1: N = 4,916, Time 2: N = 4,874), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggest that crying proneness is a multidimensional construct best characterized by four factors called Attachment Tears, Societal Tears, Sentimental/Moral Tears, and Compassionate Tears."
## [29] "The final solution contained 12 items on 2 conceptually meaningful factors: 1) Activities of daily living (n = 8 items) and Movement (n = 4 items). This final solution explained 65% of the variance, with the following distribution of percentage of variance explained by each factor: 1) 40.67%, 2) 24.30%. The final solution did not contain any cross-loading items, and all items had primary factor loadings of ≥.50."
## [30] "One-factor confirmatory factor analysis for the 3-item Bicultural Management Difficulty Measure showed that all items loaded well on the latent factor for both father and mother reports (λs = .51 to .80, p < .001). For the 6-item measure, both father and mother models showed acceptable model fit, χ²(9, N = 271) 33.15, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .04 for father reports; and 2(9, N = 294) = 23.20, p < .001, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .03 for mother reports. All the items loaded well on the latent factors ( λs = .53 to .87, p < .001)."
## [31] "The four-factor structure (offline and online direct and indirect victimization) of the MOOPV was confirmed using exploratory (n = 325) and confirmatory factor analyses (n = 799) among adolescents aged 9–18 years."
## [32] "In a normal sample of N = 717 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), the factor structure (Depression, Anxiety and Stress ) was substantiated both by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis."
## [33] "All items loaded on one factor, and confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model yielded satisfactory fit: χ2(9, N = 1,468) = 106.10, p < .001, CFI = .942, RMSEA = .086, SRMR = .036."
## [34] "Factor analysis: An exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the construct validity of the scale using the principal axis method and oblique rotation (n = 1,069). When the initial 77-item scale was administered to a sample of 1,069 employees in Turkey, factor analysis revealed a 5-factor structure, with 43 items explaining 46.1% of the variance. These factors include: “Organizational Norms and Practices,” “Role and Work Overload,” “Insecure Relationships,” “Role Insufficiency,” and “Physical Work Demands.” The items loading only 1 factor with a factor load above .30 were kept in the scale."
## [35] "Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses showed satisfactory scalar invariance across cultural groups for the measures: host culture (German/Bulgarian) adoption, x²(116, N = 344) = 303.48, p < .001, CFI = .916, RMSEA = .064, heritage Turkish culture maintenance, x²(119, N = 344) = 332.37, p < .001, CFI = .883, RMSEA = .072."
## [36] "Based on reviewing the clusters of items, factor loadings, reliability estimates, and clinical interpretability, an 11-factor solution (Numbness, Fear, Gastrointestinal upset, Bruising/Bleeding, Fatigue, Headache, Soar throat, Rectal itch, Shortness of breath, Fever, and Body changes) was determined that explained 73.3% of the variance for the 45 items in Part 1. The 8 items in Part 3 were submitted to a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation (n = 118 HIV-positive women), and a 1-factor solution explained 71.8% of the variance."
## [37] "Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the CDAQ resulted in a 4-factor solution with 2 factors each for the Perpetration and Victimization scales: Direct Aggression and Control. The 4-factor solution showed good fit: χ² (714, n = 400) = 1628, RMSEA = .076 (90% CI [.072, .079], p = .36, CFI = .99, NNFI = .99. All the factor loadings were significant (p < .001) and ranged between .58 and 1."
## [38] "Exploratory principal components analysis with oblique rotation yielded the final 39-item, seven-factor structure: 1. Positive Action (10 items), 2. Passive Problem Solving (6 items), 3. Self-Destructive Escape (5 items), 4. Social Support (5 items), 5. Spiritual Hope (4 items), 6. Depression/Withdrawal (5 items), and 7. Nondisclosure/Problem Avoidance (4 items). The seven subscales accounted for 53.2% of the variance. Following confirmatory factor analysis, findings for the young adult sample indicated that the proposed factor model fit the data fairly well. The chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was 1.92, X²(681, N = 320) = 1,304.82. The CFI was .85, suggesting adequate fit. SRMR was .07 (good fit), and RMSEA was .05, with a 90% confidence interval (CI) of .049 to .058 (good to fair fit). With few exceptions, similar results were found in the adult sample."
## [39] "Exploratory factor analysis in a sample of university students yielded three factors comprised of a total of 19 items: (a) Thoughts of Control Scale (10 items); (b) Thoughts of Revenge Scale (4 items); and (c) Pejorative Thoughts Scale (5 items). The factors were replicated and cross validated in another large sample (n = 757) and were the same for men and women."
## [40] "Factor Analysis: Factorial validity of the single-factor performance measure was confirmed in the present sample (N = 99) via confirmatory factor analysis, χ2(9) = 19.82, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .99, SRMR = .05. The factor loadings of the six performance items ranged from .85 to .61."
## [41] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis of the AGQ items strongly supported the hypothesized 6-factor model: Task-Approach Goals; Task-Avoidance Goals; Self-Approach Goals; Self-Avoidance Goals: Other-Approach Goals; and Other-Avoidance Goals. All standardized factor loadings were moderate to strong (ranging from .52 to .95) and each fit statistic met the for a good fitting model: χ²(120, N = 126) = 194.25, p < .01, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .070."
## [42] "Principal components analysis: Principal components analysis of the Typology extracted a 6-factor solution: Socializers; Completionists; Competitors; Escapists; Story-Driven, and Smarty-Pants. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an excellent fit for the 6-factor model: χ²(75, N = 381) = 125.17, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.67, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .04, Critical N = 293, with no loading less than .63."
## [43] "Three confirmatory factor analyses on meaningful subsets of the scales were performed. The first model of health belief (HBM) constructs (susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers) yielded adequate fit, x² (450, N = 193) = 824.84, p < .001, CFI = .90. The second model of theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs (advantages of tanning, 3 norm constructs, self-efficacy) yielded good fit, x² (354, N = 193) = 609.01, p < ,001, CFI = .93. The third model of the two intention constructs also fit well, x² (30, N = 193) = 87.34, p < .001, CFI = .96."
## [44] "CFA of the 27-item second-order factor model resulted in an acceptable model fit for the polytomous IGD Scale, chi-squared(315, N = 923) = 959.420, p < .001, CFI = .991, WRMR = 1.005, RMSEA = .047 (90% CI: .043, .050). The same model for the dichotomous IGD Scale also showed an acceptable model fit, chi-squared(315, N = 989) = 486.825, p < .001, CFI = .989, WRMR = .966, RMSEA = .019 (90% CI: .019, .027)."
## [45] "Principal Component Analysis: A two-factor solution supported the two-part format of the instrument. The alpha coefficients (.91 and .86 for the Fear and Observe scores, respectively) indicate high internal consistency. The two scores were also uncorrelated (r = -.03, ns), which indicates that the two factors represent independent dimensions. Confirmatory Factory Analysis: The independence model that tests whether all variables are uncorrelated could easily be rejected: chi squared (780, n = 171) = 2,681.12, p<.001, GFI = .38, RMSEA = .12."
## [46] "The overall fit of the CFA model for the total sample was good: chi square(50, N = 539) = 148.97, p < .01, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .06."
## [47] "Exploratory factor analysis of the Native Hawaiian subsample (n = 194) indicated the presence of three factors (comprised of a total of 24 items) accounting for 63% of the variance: Peer pressure (23%); Family offers and context (21%); and Unanticipated drug offers (19%)."
## [48] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Different test models were tested in both groups with two through five latent factors. Although the fit indices improved as underlying latent factors were added, better fit indices for multidimensional factorial solutions were merely a statistical artifact. The models with multifactorial structure could not be interpreted, as different items of the instrument loaded on more than one factor, and none of the extracted factors was reasonable from a substantive standpoint. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A hypothesized one-factor model was fitted. In sample 1, this model provided a poor fit to the data: chi squared (90, N = 346) = 300.48, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.082, 90% CI [0.072; 0.093], p < 0.001; CFI = 0.857; SRMR = 0.060. Similarly, a poor fit to the data was provided by the one-factor model also in sample 2: Chi squared (90, N = 245) = 196.69, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.070, 90% CI [0.056; 0.083], p < 0.001; CFI = 0.853; SRMR = 0.066."
## [49] "Four domains (attention and impulse control, externalizing, internalizing, and prosocial behaviors) were tested using confirmatory factor analysis of data from more than 1,600 Chilean children who participated in the larger longitudinal study. The authors conducted confirmatory factor analysis twice, first using data collected at the beginning of prekindergarten and then using data collected at the end of kindergarten. The authors found support for a four-factor model at both time points: beginning of prekindergarten, chi squared(269, n=270)=4,243.68, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.09, comparative fit index (CFI)=.82, Tucker–Lewis reliability index (TLI)=.81, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) =.08; end of kindergarten, chi squared(269, n=270)=3,973.68, p < .001, RMSEA=.09, CFI=.81, TLI=.80, SRMR=.08."
## [50] "The specified confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was found to fit the observed data well (RMSEA= 0.001; x²[2, n = 211] = 2.52; x² /df = 1.26; p = 0.28; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.97; CFI = 1.0; NFI = 1.0). This model explained 80%, 65%, 52%, and 72% of the variance of diminished impulse control, loneliness/depression, distraction, and social comfort, respectively. All factor loadings and coefficients were significant and in the expected direction."
## [51] "The CFA indicated that the five-factor model with ISFS as a higher order construct provides an excellent fit, with x²(8,N = 150) = 13.47, p = .31 (normed chi-square value (x²/df) = 1.68), RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04 and CFI = .98. All measured variables loaded strongly on the latent variable (kappa range = .67 to .91)."
## [52] "The responses to the GMRI were determined to be appropriate for factor analysis, as Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (chi square = 3587.92, df = 406, p<.01) and the Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .833. Exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation for the validation sample (n=109) revealed a five-factor structure: Continuing Bonds, Personal Growth, Sense of Peace, Emptiness and Meaninglessness, and Valuing Life."
## [53] "The best fitting model comprised 24 items chi square(246, N = 315) = 490.544, p < .001. The RMSEA was 0.06 with a 90% CI of 0.05. The CFI value was 0.92 and TFI value was 0.91. Last, the SRMR was .051."
## [54] "For the 8-factor model that was identified by the iterative process described above, the CFA (N=309) showed good model fit according to CFI and RMSEA and acceptable fit according to CFI and TLI. Nine items had modification indices above 10 (eight in the range of 10 to 13.4 and one item 21.5). We also attempted to determine whether a summary score for all 32 items would simplify the measurement of our construct by forcing all items into a single factor model. However, the fit indices showed a predictably poor fit. To determine whether all eight factors could support an overall interoceptive awareness construct, we also tested a hierarchical model, with the eight factors as indicators of one overall second-order factor. The fit indices showed a fit to the data almost as good as the first-order CFA. All loadings were significant at p<.001 for all three models."
## [55] "An exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed on 378 subjects. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (chi squared=4059.41, P<.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (.85) supported the factor analysis of the data. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to replicate the findings from the EFAs. Accordingly, 4 latent factors were created. To evaluate fit, the authors utilized TLI, CFI, and RMSEA fit indices, with a general cutoff of .90 or above for TLI and CFI as indicators of good model fit and a cutoff of .08 or less for RMSEA. A measurement model resulted in acceptable overall model fit, chi squared(124, N=384)=261.82, P<.001, TLI=.92, CFI=.94, RMSEA=.05. All indicators loaded onto their respective factors at acceptable levels, ranging from .50 to .74. To further confirm the factor structure, the CFA was repeated using the full sample of 762 participants. Results were similar to the split-sample findings, with acceptable overall model-fit."
## [56] "The authors examined the factor structure of the RWV scale in a large sample of undergraduate psychology students (n = 1,147, 65% female) using an exploratory factor analysis with an Oblimin rotation. The scree analysis indicated that there was one strong factor (eigenvalue = 13.01) which accounted for 68.5% of the variance in responses."
## [57] "Using the K-means, resulting clusters were statistically different from one another, F(2, 560) = 261.88, p < .00. The resulting clusters were named the resulting clusters (1) “high mindfulness” (32% of total, n = 182), (2) “moderate mindfulness” (41% of total, n = 229), and (3) “low mindfulness” (27% of total, n = 152). The high mindfulness group had a strong mindfulness score of M = 6.6, while the low mindfulness group’s score was M = 2.9. The factor loadings for the scales ranged from .79-.94."
## [58] "The authors employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test a 1-factor model for the 10 EPS items with the data of the development sample (N = 635), using robust maximum-likelihood estimation to correct for distortion in fit indices and standard errors due to multivariate nonnormality. The 1-factor CFA model for 10 EPS items fit the data of the development sample reasonably well except for the RMSEA criterion, SB-ML chi squared(35, N = 635) = 265.98, RMSEA = .108, SRMR = .065, CFI = .93, NNFI = .91. The authors therefore made slight model modifications following recommended procedures for maximizing cross-sample generalizability, to optimize the fit of the 1-factor CFA model to the data of the development sample. The authors then used the data of the development sample (N = 635) to test three hypothesized pairs of correlated measurement errors in the 1-factor CFA model, each of which was statistically significant."
## [59] "For the exploratory factor analysis, the 30 items of the TAQ were tested for indications of univariate skewness, kurtosis, and variance across response options. Four original items were removed from the scale due to high skewness and low variance across respondents (N = 2) and loading onto two factors (N = 2)."
## [60] "The PIR was positively correlated with another measure used in the study, the Participant's Perception of Group Response Measure(r = .56, p = .00, n = 103)."
## [61] "For the exploratory factor analysis, item correlations ranged from -.01 to .69 and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .50. The three-factor oblique solution from exploratory analysis was the basis for the confirmatory analysis. The value of chi square was statistically significant [chi square(N = 342, df = 11) =2 1.71, p = .03]. The TLI was marginally adequate at .947, while the RMSEA was .053."
## [62] "The principal components analysis (PCA) results were chi square (8, n = 1135) = 162.66, p < .001. The factor loadings ranged from .66-.87."
## [63] "The factor analysis results: chi square(4, N= 1′671)= 13.707, p = .008, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .038 (90% CI: .017, .061), SRMR = .019."
## [64] "Factor analysis: The initial analysis of 60 items suggested a nine-factor solution (62.2% variance). Consequently, five-, four-and three-factor solutions were examined using Varimax and Oblimin rotations of the factor-loading matrix. A four-factor solution (explaining 54.3% variance) was preferred. The four factors were: Instrumentality, Intrusion, Brooding, and Preventability. In total 28 items were eliminated from the original list as they failed to contribute to a simple factor structure. A PFA of the remaining 32 items with Varimax and Oblimin rotations was repeated, with the four factors explaining 58.4% of the variance. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using a MLE solution in the second study was conducted to test a revised 3-factor MRIS structure (Intrusion, Instrumentality and Brooding). The model showed good fit with these data ([Χ²(df = 17, N = 163) = 25.81, p = .08, GFI = .96, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06]. All parcels loadings on their respective factor exceeded .79."
## [65] "The sample of valid data sets was randomly distributed to either the scale construction (n = 129, or two-thirds of the total participants) or scale replication group (n = 63, or the remaining one-third). These participant data sets were used for the MMPI-2 item selection process. The a priori criterion of MMPI-2 items differentially answered by 75% of participants was found to be overly inclusive and was adjusted to include only those items that yielded a significant difference (p < .05) between high and low CBI groups in a two-tailed independent t-test, resulting in a total of 62 MMPI-2 items from which to determine the scale. A 62 item subscale was seen as being too unwieldy for the MMPI-2, however, and potentially too sample-specific. A more conservative criterion (p more stringent than .01) was then chosen in hopes of attaining more generalizability. The final 31-item model correctly classified 95.1% of the original scale construction sample."
## [66] "Exploratory factor analysis of all 24 items indicated that a six factor model fit the data best, chi square(147, N = 804) = 101.98, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .057 (CI 90 interval = .052–.062). Confirmatory factor analysis used Structural Equation Modeling, with multiple indices to determine fit of the current model. The condensed 13-item two-factor measure of PO/TO found in Study 1 provided adequate fit for the data."
## [67] "Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in LISREL 8.70, and the two-factor structure was supported (interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal). The model-data fit is good: X<2>(26) = 184.22, N=1,496, p = .00; GFI = .97; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .06 and SRMR = .04."
## [68] "The confirmatory factor analysis results: chi square(75, N = 230) = 117.37, p = .001, SRMR = .04, CFI = .97, and RMSEA= .050."
## [69] "Principal component analysis: Examination of the Eigenvalues from the principal component analysis suggested the presence of two subscales. This was also supported by the loadings in the first principle component that showed clear patterns of residuals on two components, with 3 items with positive correlations, and 3 others with negative loadings. However, evidence from the t test grouping these items together in subtests revealed that the amount of multidimensionality was not significant, with < 1% of the subtests (n = 13) showing no significant differences in the estimated differences generated (t = - 3.23, p = .15)."
## [70] "Principal component factor analysis resulted in two sets of items that formed a weak but interpretable factor structure, with reasonable face validity. These are: 1. ‘Heartsink’ – initial Eigen value=1.23, variance explained= 17.58; and ‘Heartfelt’ initial Eigen value=2.04, variance explained = 29.17. Together these factors explained 47% of the variance of the seven items. The two factors correlate at r=−0.23, P = 0.01, n = 125."
## [71] "The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using 3 samples of Chinese college students (N = 1,807) suggested the viability and stability of a 4-factor model: Understanding Oneself in Context, Involving Relevant Others in Context, Considering Others in Context, and Detaching and Gaining Perspective."
## [72] "Confirmatory factor analysis results with 70% of the data are: chi square (80, N = 1,318) = 287.23, p < .001; TLI = .950; CFI = .962; RMSEA = .044. CFA results with the remaining 30% are: chi square(80, N = 572) = 139.07, p < .001; TLI = .968; CFI = .975; RMSEA = .036."
## [73] "The CFA results are: chi square[N=90, 27]=61.20, p<.05, RMSEA=.08, SRMR=.07, CFI=.99 for cultural empathy, chi square[N=90, 27]=56.10, p<.05, RMSEA=.11, SRMR=.09, CFI=.99 for open-mindedness, chi square[N=90, 27]=88.50, p<.01, RMSEA=.16, SRMR=.09, CFI=.96 for flexibility, and chi square(14, N=90)=20.04, p>.08; Bollen-Stine p=.21; CFI=.99, SRMR=.05, and RMSEA=.08 for the larger study measure."
## [74] "Exploratory factor analysis: Prior to computing descriptive statistics for the BFRS scale, a principal-axis exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the individuals in the three groups (N = 726). Inspection of a scree plot strongly supported the presence of a single factor underlying participant responses to this scale. As each item loaded strongly (i.e., > .50) on this factor, a scale score was formed by averaging scores across each of the 15 items."
## [75] "CFA of the three-factor model with Sample B was preformed using the IBM SPSS Amos 22 program. The fit indices of the model indicated that the correspondence between the three-factor model and the sample covariance matrix was satisfactory, χ²(31, N = 210) = 79.311; TLI = .930; CFI = .952; IFI = .953; RMSEA = .086, 90% CI [.063, .110]; SRMR = .062. All items of the three subscales were significantly related to the three latent factors."
## [76] "The EFA results show that a single factor was retained, with an eigenvalue of 10.14, explaining 57.2% of the variance in the UDDS. The CFA model obtained satisfactory fit, chi square(126, n = 636) = 409.11, p < .001, CFI = .99, GFI = .99, RMSEA = .06."
## [77] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principle axis exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. Factor loadings indicate that there are at least three items representing each of the four forms of employee silence. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFAs results confirmed superiority of the proposed correlated four-factor model. This model provides a good fit [χ² (n = 373) = 182.87; df = 48; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .087] and a significantly better fit than the uni-dimensional model, an uncorrelated four-factor model, or other alternative models with two or three factors."
## [78] "The factor analysis results are: chi square(13, N = 85) 15.49, p = .278, RMSEA = .029, pclose = .719 (CI 90%: .000 – .076), NFI = .964, CFI = .994."
## [79] "Factor analysis results are: chi square(7, N = 162) = 5.82, p = .56; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00 (90% CI: .00 –.09); SRMR = .03."
## [80] "Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a one-factor solution representing job self-efficacy; a sub-sample (n=137) in which a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out also verified the one-factor model."
## [81] "Starting from the preliminary 26-item version of the scale, exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were performed, producing a shorter version of 19 items with each subscale comprised of 4 items, except for shared influence (3 items). Two confirmatory factor analysis models were performed with the 19-item version: a single-factor model and a 5-factor model. Errors on individual items were not allowed to correlate, except for negatively worded ones (Marsh, 1996). In the multifactor model, items were constrained to load only on the pertinent factor, and latent factors were allowed to correlate. The 5-factor model presented better fit indexes (χ2 [10, N = 781] = 786.41, p<0.001)."
## [82] "The 8 items in this revised version were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 7.0 to verify that they retained their structure as two dimensions of instructional face threat mitigation. Following a minor modification, the model achieved a good fit with the projected structure: χ²(15, N = 328) = 27.26, p = .03, CMIN1.818, CFI = .985, RMSEA = .050, affirming its validity."
## [83] "Results from exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation and parallel analysis on data from the annual SSI sample (N = 212) indicated a 5-factor solution for competencies that were subsequently labeled Human Services Structure and Policy (12 items), Safety and Risk Indicators (8 items), Child Welfare Service Delivery (13 items), Child Welfare Practice Skills (18 items), Ethical and Culturally Competent Practice (5 items)."
## [84] "Multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the factor structure based on responses to 51 items by a new cross-validation group (n = 9,134) was invariant with the factor structures based on responses to the same 51 items and to all 102 items by the original normative archive group (n = 9,187)."
## [85] "The exploratory factor analysis was first performed on a random 50% of a total sample (n= 665). Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001), and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was .81. The inspection of the scree plot showed one factor in this analysis; this comprised five items with an eigenvalue of 2.55, which accounted for 51.10% of variance. Each of the five scale items had a relative high loading on this factor (.70, .62, .74, .74, .76). No other significant factor was extracted."
## [86] "To support the assumption of a four-factor structure of the data, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the sample aged 50–60 (N = 965) and the four-factor model with correlated factors provided an acceptable fit to the data."
## [87] "The CFA results confirmed the 4 factor model (Leaving Intentions, Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Behavioral Control): chi square (4, N = 169) = 4.87, p = .30; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04; AIC = 38.87."
## [88] "Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit to the data using a one‐factor solution, chi-squared (23)=27.12, N=202, P=.25; comparative fit index (CFI)=.98; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.030, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.000, .068]."
## [89] "An exploratory factor analysis of the final set of five items using a pilot sample of undergraduate and graduate students (N = 170) verified a single-factor solution. The eigenvalue for the first factor was 4.03 and it accounted for more than 80% of the variance in the set of items. A confirmatory factor analysis of the items using a separate pilot sample of full-time employees (N = 156) showed that the single factor model had a good fit."
## [90] "A confirmatory factor analytic measurement model for the IMCS was estimated prior to estimating structural models in order to test the fit of the factor structure of the IMCS and to determine the factor loadings for each item. A single-factor model demonstrated acceptable fit [χ2 (18, N= 488) = 70.3, p < .01, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) .06–.10, Comparative Fit Index (CFI)= .94, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)= .05]. Item loadings were all significant (p < .001) and ranged from .38 to .80."
## [91] "A multigroup confirmatory analysis was performed to simultaneously test the correlated five-factor theoretical structure (Anxiety, Well-Being, Perception of Positive Change, Depression, and Psychological Distress) on both clinical and nonclinical samples; the maximum likelihood estimator was applied. The resulting fit indices demonstrated that the model fit the data well: despite the chi-squared being significant (χ² SB [Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square] [484; clinical group: N = 168; nonclinical group: N = 269] = 1,014.29; P < 0.01), the other indices (NNFI [non-normed fit index] = 0.98; CFI [comparative fit index] = 0.98; RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation] = 0.07) were more than satisfactory."
## [92] "EFA/CFA yielded a final 8-item measure with two 4-item factors accounting for 63% of the total item variance: Pros and Cons. The 2-factor model demonstrated strong model fit: chi-squared[19, N = 298] = 55.62, p < .001, CFI = .94, AASR = .048. Factor loadings were at least .70."
## [93] "Two robust maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of the 22-item measure were conducted. The first CFA model included the 22 items represented by one latent variable and displayed borderline adequate fit, χ2(209, N = 102) = 359.61, p < .001, χ2/df ratio = 1.72, CFI = .89, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = [.069, .099]), AIC = 5,773.37. The second CFA model included the 22 items represented by five latent variables (Physical Anxiety, Fear of Making Mistakes, Anxiety about Understanding, Feelings of Incompetence, and Distinction from General Communication Apprehension). The model bordered on adequate fit, χ2(198, N = 102) = 346.05, p < .001, χ2/df ratio = 1.75, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .09 (90% CI = [.070, .100]), AIC = 5,752.67. Overall, the unidimensional scale was deemed to be superior to a multifactor model. Given this unidimensionality, 7 items were selected as a short scale based on factor loadings, internal reliability contribution, and interviewee responses."
## [94] "The second-order CFA had the most adequate fit (x2diff (2, N = 470) = 100.83, p <.001), supporting the factorial validity of the measure."
## [95] "The seven FLCA items were subjected to CFAs with robust maximum likelihood. The basic measurement model consisted of one latent variable (FLCA) and seven indicators. In the first CFA, the model indicated good fit, chi-squared(14, N ≥ 224) = 17.49, p = .23, chi-squared/df ratio = 1.25, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .03 (90% CI = [.00, .077]), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .017. All items loaded above .81. In the second CFA, the basic model had good fit, chi-squared(14, N = 216) = 17.35, p = .24, chi-squared/df ratio = 1.24, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .033 (90% CI = [.000, .077]), SRMR = .025. All items loaded onto the factor above .75.."
## [96] "Confirmatory factor analysis and a second-order analysis confirmed the 7 factor model had a good fit with the data, χ2(df = 13, n = 11,769) = 639, CFI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI = 0.060–0.068), TLI = 0.973."
## [97] "Results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the previously established two-factor model (i.e., 7-item shyness scale; 4-item unsociability scale) fit the data well, χ2(43, N = 350)= 153.92, χ2/df = 3.58, p < .001; normed fit index = .90, comparative fit index = .92, incremental fit index = .93, root mean square error of approximation = .08, providing validation of the internal structure of the CSPS in Chinese children. Accordingly, the final version of the Chinese CSPS was a two-factor scale: shyness (7 items; factor loadings from .59 to .73) and unsociability (4 items; factor loadings from .59 to .76)."
## [98] "Exploratory analyses among women (N = 207) indicated a 20-item scale with the original five factors: Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat, Internalization: Muscular/Athletic, Pressures: Family, Pressures: Media, Pressures: Peers. This structure was confirmed among a second sample of women (N = 227). A slightly modified factor structure emerged in men (Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat, Internalization: Muscular/Athletic, Pressures: Media, Pressures: Family and Peers – Thinness, and Pressures: Family and Peers – Better Shape)."
## [99] "Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the eight PICTS subscales scores of a sample of Egyptian male prisoners (n = 130) best fitted a two-factor model, in which one dimension comprised Mollification, Entitlement, Super optimism, Sentimentality, and Discontinuity, and the second dimension reflected Power orientation, Cut-off and Cognitive indolence."
## [100] "Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that both incremental fit indexes (CFI = .96; TLI = .95) and absolute measures of fit indexes were good (RMSEA = .07) for the two-dimensional model: (chi-squared (32, N = 2463) = 417.8, p < .001)."
## [101] "Principal Component Analysis on a sample of ethnically diverse college students (N = 1947) yielded the same four motives for the original and revised questionnaires. Conformity Factor Analyses yielded a four-factor model with acceptable-to-good fit to the data. The four-factor model provided even better goodness-to-fit for the Palatable Eating Motives Scale--Revised."
## [102] "Principal component analysis on a random sample (n=200) and confirmation on a second random sample (n=200) indicated that each of the scales under consideration provided a significant measurement model for the symptom burden (CFI=0.95), health behavior (CFI=1.00), functional limitation (CFI=0.99), health care seeking skill (CFI=0.98), and cancer-related financial strain (CFI=1.00) broad domains."
## [103] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA was conducted by using the estimation method WLSMV. The results confirmed the unidimensional structure of the scale. The fit indexes were as follows: X²(90, N = 330) = 229.66, p < .01; TLI = .95; CFI = .95 y RMSEA = .07 (LO 90 = .06; HI 90 = .08)."
## [104] "A confirmatory factor analysis yielded 3 factors: moral, conventional and prudential domain judgments. indices. The final model showed an acceptable fit: χ2(132, N = 339) = 450.52, p<.05; NNFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = .07(.06; .08); SRMR = .05, with all factor loadings significant for p<.001"
## [105] "Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a one-factor structure provided a good fit for the data, χ2(59, N = 266) = 144.20, TLI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07."
## [106] "A three-factor confirmatory factor analysis provided a good fit for the data, (96, N = 266) = 138.49, TLI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04."
## [107] "The final 4-dimensional, 28-item model was tested with results indicating good model fit to the data χ2(317, n=325)=998.56, p<0.05; χ2/df=3.34, RMSEA=0.08 (1-RMSEA=0.92), NFI=0.92, CFI=0.95, RMR=0.03, GFI=0.81."
## [108] "Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a nine-factor structure. Sample 1: chi-squared (288, n = 724) = 672.424, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.043 (90% CI: 0.039−0.047). Sample 3: chi-squared (288, n = 601) = 570.681, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.040 (90% CI: 0.036−0.045)."
## [109] "An exploratory factor analysis with an unselected student sample (N = 506) suggested a two-factor solution (Distraction is necessary and Distraction is effective). A confirmatory factor analysis using a contamination-fearful sample (N = 132) demonstrated adequate model fit."
## [110] "Factor analysis was attempted, but due to a small sample size (N = 66), the assumptions for this analysis were not met."
## [111] "A CFA confirmed a model with five independent but correlated factors: chi-squared(81, N = 308) = 237.22, p < .01, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07."
## [112] "Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded 4 factors: Pro-bully (10 items), Defender (5 items), Victim (2 items), and Outsider (3 items). The confirmatory four factor model obtained satisfactory fit to the data, χ2(164, N = 636) = 614.31, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.066. All factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.89."
## [113] "A single-factor model of negative affect comprising six indicators was fit to the data, yielding a significant model chi-square indicating poor model fit, X²(64, N = 8,979) = 1,344.99, p < .001. Next, a two-factor model evaluating negative affect as separate factors of Agitation and Distress was fit to the data, yielding a significant model chi-square, X²(58, N = 8,979) = 468.42, p < .001, which again indicated poor model fit. A Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 1999) indicated that this two-factor model improved the fit significantly relative to the single-factor model. Additionally, the two-factor model yielded favorable model-fit values for all indices. Therefore the two-factor model (Agitation and Distress, 3 items each) was finalized."
## [114] "Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in the final 45-item, nine-factor structure (5 items per factor): 1. Mastery Experiences, 2. Cognitive Development, 3. Teaching, 4. Normative Success, 5. Interaction with Others, 6. Fun and Enjoyment, 7. Improvement of Health/Fitness, 8. Diversionary Experiences, and 9. Relaxation. Results indicated that the 9-factor model was a close fit to the data: χ²(909, n = 175) = 1,714.50, p < .001; SRMSR = .062; CFI =.98; PNFI = .87."
## [115] "Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the 2-factor model provided a better fit to the data (Chi-squared[64, N = 158] 157.56, p < .01; goodness-of-fit index = .85; normed fit index = .87; comparative fit index = .92; parsimonious normed fit index = .71; RMSEA = .09; chi-squared difference[1, N = 158] = 103.95, p < .01) than a unidimensional model."
## [116] "CFA produced a 1-factor model of the initial 7-item psychological ownership scale produced a significant chi-square ( X<2>=31.56, 14 d.f., p<0.05, RMSEA=0.09, CFI=0.97). Modification indices indicated the model could be improved by dropping the last 3 items. This improved the chi-square statistic such that it failed to reach significance ( X<2>=5.29, 2 d.f., p>0.05), with factor loadings 0.71–0.87 and t-values 10.64–13.97. In Sample 2 (n=409), CFA of the revised measure again showed a non-significant chi-square ( X<2>=3.69, 2 d.f., p>0.05, RMSEA=0.05, CFI=0.99), with factor loadings 0.76–0.91 and t-values 17.44–22.65. The chi-square was also nonsignificant in Sample 3 (X< 2>=3.74, 2 d.f., p>0.05, RMSEA=0.06, CFI=0.99, n=227), with factor loadings 0.73–0.93 and t-values 11.32–17.99. Overall these results support homogeneity and unidimensionality of the measure."
## [117] "CFA produced a 6-factor structure: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse, and provided an acceptable model fit: x² (151, n= 1003)= 504.6, p<0.0001; CFI =0.935; TLI= 0.918 RMSEA=0.048 (90%CI: 0.044-0.053), pclose= 0.716; SRMR=0.041."
## [118] "Confirmatory factor analyses supported five factors measuring pro-social skills, negative peer directed behavior, friendship interactions, peer victimization, and the level of concern expressed about a child's social functioning. Results indicated good fit for the five-factor model: χ²(265, N = 298) = 453.6, p < .01, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05 (90 % CI .041–.056), SRMSR = .05."
## [119] "CFA produced a one-factor solution among 7 items. Results demonstrated excellent fit (χ2 (11, N=615)=11.09, p>.15, RMSEA=.00, 95% CI.00 .04, CFI=1.0, SRMR=.01)"
## [120] "An exploratory factor analysis in a separate sample of Chinese secondary school teachers (N = 186) resulted in a two-factor solution with four Role Compatibility items, and two Role Competence items. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor model fit well to the data."
## [121] "Factor analyses on data from student samples (N = 790) revealed four clearly interpretable factors corresponding to the secure, anxious, dismissive and preoccupied attachment styles. Among a second sample of Dutch emigrants (N = 1011), a three-factor solution was found in which the preoccupied and the anxious styles collapsed."
## [122] "The authors sought to reproduce the selected two-factor structure including correlated errors in the second group of Wave 1 data (N = 2,657). This analysis yielded the same adequate model fit: 2(131) 927.541 (p<.001), RMSEA=.048 (CI=-.045-.051), CFI=.966, TLI=.960. Factors 1 and 2 correlated moderately (r=.53). Together, the findings confirmed the two-dimensional structure (Illness Likelihood and Negative Consequences of Illness) of the Dutch version of the SHAI. While this factor solution was used for the remaining analyses, the authors recommend using a one-factor (Illness Likelihood), 14-item Dutch SHAI, based on predictive validity outcomes."
## [123] "Results of exploratory and factor mixture analyses yielded support for a 7-item scale consisting of two factors, social identity and identity threat, and five latent classes underlying a heterogeneous population. EFA: chi squared(8, N = 629) = 45.09, p = .000, CFI = .998, RMSEA = .086 (90% CI: .062, .111), TLI = .996, SRMR = .009."
## [124] "Three factors were revealed by PCA and verified by CFA: Fear of Death, Worry & Stress, and General Conerns. The total cumulative variance explained by these three components was 63.93%, and the fit of the final CFA was acceptable, chi-squared(48, N = 398) = 166.72, p < .001; AGFI = .885, PCFI = .683, PNFI = .662, TLI = .912, CMIN/DF = 3.47, RMSEA = .079."
## [125] "EFA/CFA yielded two factors: Cause/Cure (9 items) and General Knowledge (12 items). The 2-factor model demonstrated adequate fit: chi-2(185, N = 391) = 390.73, p < .01, CFI = .91. The factors were moderately correlated. Six additional items were included in the final questionnaire as they were thought to contain important public health information."
## [126] "Exploratory factor analyses consistently yielded four eigenvalues greater than 1; therefore, a four-factor model was retained: 1. Support (12 items), 2. Endorsement (6 items), 3. Undermining (4 items), and 4. Agreement (3 items). The model fit from the confirmatory factor analysis was excellent, χ²(246, N = 90) = 252.67, p = .37, RMSEA = .017, CFI = .995."
## [127] "The original 34 items of the CEDLE were subjected to principal axis factoring and oblimin oblique rotation. The resulting 20 items were then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed that a five-factor model (Mastery Experience, Verbal Persuasion, Vicarious Learning, Positive Emotional Arousal, and Negative Emotional Arousal) was the best fit to the data: SRMR = .06, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04; Satorra-Bentler (S-B) χ² (160, N = 324) = 240.55, p < .001."
## [128] "Although the positive and negative items were inversely correlated, confirmatory factor analysis indicated that they are best treated as indicators of separate constructs, with a two-factor model (Bentler Comparative Fit Index = 0.99) fitting the data significantly better than a one-factor model (χ²(1, n = 281) = 430.65, p < .001)."
## [129] "CFA indicated an acceptable fit with the data [chi-square (312, N = 596) = 1009, p = 0.00, CFI = 0.937, NNFI = 0.929, SRMSR = 0.049; RMSEA = 0.061]; All standardized loadings were above 0.55 and the intercorrelations were 0.30 or less."
## [130] "CFA confirmed a 6-factor model as the best fit for the data: χ2(120, N = 1950) = 871.738, p<.001, CFI = .940, RMSEA = .057, RMR = .037."
## [131] "Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the 6-factor model (Intellectual efficiency, Ingenuity, Curiosity, Aesthetics, Tolerance, and Depth) yielded very good model-data fit: χ2(128, N = 433) = 290.280, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .963, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .955, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = .054. Because the intercorrelations among the six facets were positive, the correlations collectively provided support for a higher order general Openness factor. Data also suggested the presence of 2 intermediate-level factors: Intellect and Culture."
## [132] "CFA was used to test the single order factor model, consisting of six factors that were allowed to correlate: FFFS, BIS, BAS-RI, BAS-GDP, BAS-RR, BAS-I. The fit indices for this model were as follows: χ² (1814, N = 1512)=10211.18, p < 0.001, CFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.055. This indicates an acceptable global model fit in terms of the RMSEA, although it should be noted that the CFI value is below the rule of thumb cut-off point used for assessing acceptable model fit (0.90). Furthermore, all items loaded their respective factor, with values ranging from 0.39 to 0.81."
## [133] "The scree plot clearly indicated only one primary factor and only one factor with an eigenvalue above 1, which accounted for 81.67% of the variance. Results indicated that the proposed structural model fit the data well, χ2 (20, N = 151) = 105.97; p < .0005. All the goodness-of-fit indices exceeded the threshold levels (over .95): normed fit index = .98; comparative fit index = .98; relative fit index = .96; incremental index of fit = .98; and the Tucker-Lewis index = .97."
## [134] "Item and explorative factor analyses resulted in four subscales: Media concern, Affective media empathy, Cognitive media empathy, and Immersion in video games. In a youth sample (N = 273) and in an adult sample (N = 373), the same factorial structure was found."
## [135] "PCA lead to a reduction of 54 items. After the second survey (N=391), EFA determined six factors with 22 items: 1. Postural instability and gait difficulties, 2. Cognitive impairment, 3. Speaking problems, 4. Apathy, 5. Impulsivity, and 6. Difficulties related to the DBS device."
## [136] "The nine retained items yielded a two-factor solution explaining 33% and 17% of the variance: Negative Attitudes toward Divorce and Positive Attitudes toward Divorce. CFA verified the two-factor solution. The two-factor model seemed to adequately fit the data, with chi-squared(1, N = 664) = 88.78, p < .001, chi-sqaured/df = 3.41, RMSEA = .060, and CFI = 0.932."
## [137] "Measurement Invariance: The measurement model for the 4-factor structure (Mastery-approach [MA], Performance-approach [PA], Mastery-avoidance [MV], and Performance-avoidance [PV]) showed good fit to the data. In the panel data (N = 343), the four achievement goals showed strong measurement invariance, suggesting factor loadings and intercepts of the items remained invariant across a year."
## [138] "Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the fit indices were excellent for the model, consisting of three correlated factors (Emotional Regulation, Behavioral Regulation and Psychosocial Problems): χ2(321, N = 237) = 259; RMSEA = .058 (90% CI: 0.051; 0.066); CFI = .93; and SRMR = .059."
## [139] "A factor analysis of the scales was performed for both forms of the Romanian CSI–4, using the non-clinical sample (N=1066). In the case of the Teacher Checklist, four factors were extracted, while in the case of the Parent Checklist, five factors were extracted."
## [140] "A principal components analysis with iterations and varimax rotation yielded 4 factors: Feedback utility, Feedback sensitivity, Feedback confidentiality, and Feedback retention. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the 4-factor model (27 final items) with good model fit, chi-squared (318, N = 45) = 594.79, p<0.001, NNFI = .94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = .060, with the 90% confidence interval = .053 0.067."
## [141] "EFA yielded a single-factor structure, explaining a large proportion of variance (27.60%; eigenvalue equaled 23%): X²(l, N = 251) = 8,142.43; p < .001."
## [142] "CFA yielded a 2-factor structure: Reflective Exploration and Preoccupation: χ2 (N = 217, 34) = 42.54; p = .15, χ2/df = 1.25; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03; CI = .00–.06. These results supported evidence of construct and predictive validity."
## [143] "A principal component analysis with orthogonal rotation (oblimin) was conducted for samples 2, 3, and a subsample of 50% of sample 1 jointly. Two factors were derived, which accounted for 47.69% of the total variance. the previously tested five items loaded onto factor 1, which was named “Fearlessness of Death.” It accounted for 29.18% of variance. Five of the eight newly developed items loaded onto factor 2 named “Pain Tolerance.” It accounted for 18.5% of variance. Items 6, 8, 10 and 11 did not load onto any of the two factors. Of those items 8, 10 and 11 were eliminated. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with the remaining half of sample 1 (n = 266). Values for CFI (.94), RMSEA (.09; 90% CI [0.07; 1.1] and SRMR (0.07) all indicated an acceptable fit of the model."
## [144] "EFA/CFA yielded a unidimensional structure. The data fit the model well: χ2(27, N = 232) = 63.53, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07."
## [145] "EFA and CFA indicated a unidimensional scale. EFA yielded a single factor with eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and the Scree plot also suggested a single-factor solution. This factor accounted for 75.36% of the total variance with high item loadings for all four items. CFA confirmed the specified measurement model, chi-squared(2, N=466)=1.75, p=0.417, and fit indices indicated excellent model fit, NFI=0.998, GFI=0.998, CFI=1.00, and RMSEA=0.000."
## [146] "EFA and CFAs produced an 18-item, five-factor instrument: Relational Cost (RC); Social Benefit (SB); Material Gain (MG); Out of Control (OC); and Money Loss (ML). The fit indices for the model were chi-squared (125, N = 1218) = 488.94, p < .001, chi-squared/df = 3.91, CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05 (.05, .06), which suggested a good fit of the model. All factor loadings were significant at the .05 level."
## [147] "A PCA of the six final items yielded a one-factor solution that accounted for 51.0% of the variance. Cross-validation of the one-factor model showed a good fit for most fit indices: chi-squared (N=1642, df=9)=357.5; p B<.001, TLI=.90, CFI=.94 in Sample 2; chi-squared (N=2331, df=9) 396.9; p<.001, TLI=.92, CFI=.95 in Sample 3). However, for both samples the RMSEA values were slightly off with values of .15 in Sample 2 and .14 in Sample 3."
## [148] "Factor analysis indicated a single-factor solution: chi-2(35, N = 493) = 167.96, p<0.001 (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09)."
## [149] "Two-factor model of the SRVS: χ²(8, N = 85) = 9.454, p = .305; CFI = .99; GFI = .96; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [0.00, 0.14]."
## [150] "EFA yielded a 2-factor solution explaining 37.26% of the total variation. CFA confirmed the model showed a good fit with the data: x²(43, N= 382) = 86.46, p <.05; x²/SD= 2.01; RMSEA = .05; GFI = .96; AGFI = .94; NNFI = .96; CFI = .97."
## [151] "The factor structure of the questionnaire was cross-validated and achieved satisfactory results. The total sample (N = 873) was split into halves randomly. EFA was performed with the first half of the sample (n = 436). Based on the EFA-derived factor structure, a measurement model was specified and validated by CFA with the other half of the sample (n = 437). EFA generated six factors. CFA also achieved a satisfactory model fit, χ²(721) = 1434.14, χ²/df = 1.989, p = .000, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .048, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.044, .051], standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .054, normed fit index (NFI) = .846, comparative fit index (CFI) = .916, and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .910."
## [152] "A principal component factor analysis was conducted. The scree plot revealed that there was only one clear factor that accounted for 50% of the variance. When scores for all items were combined, the mean score was 24.35 (SD=8.75, N=399). It was expected that all the items would fall primarily on one factor. First, the unrotated factor loadings were examined. A factor analysis was conducted. Factor one accounted for 49.07% of the variance (Eigenvalue=4.91) and consisted of specifically phrased items. Eight items loaded on one factor. Results revealed that items 8 and 10 should be removed. Using only eight items accounted for 55.48% of the variance (Eigenvalue=4.44)."
## [153] "CFA results supported a three-factor structure; that is, three distinct dimensions of metacognitive strategy use, cognitive strategy use, and metacognitive knowledge for reading were identified: χ²(17, N = 139) = 16.36, p = .50, GFI = .97, AGFI = .94, NNFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, and RMR = .03."
## [154] "Psychometric properties of the HPWS item factors were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis provided a good fit to the data (x2[288, N = 911] = 429.795, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.05) for the 9-factor model. All hypothesised loadings were statistically significant."
## [155] "The initial 23 items were subjected to an EFA using principal axis factoring and an oblique rotation method, direct oblimin. Loadings greater than .40 were used in interpreting the factors as: Emphasis on Assigned Sex Expression, Affirmation of Gender Expression in All Forms, and Generalized Emphasis on Gender Binary Expression. In Study 2, further item development and refinement occurred. Each of the remaining 24 items loaded greater than .40 on the expected factor. Results of the CFA examining the GEATC as three correlated factors indicated a good fit to the data: χ² (249, N = 202) = 477.82, p < .001, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.06, .08], CFI = .98, TLI = .98, WRMR = 1.092. All standardized loadings were greater than .40 (Mdn = .86; range: .41–.94)."
## [156] "Exploratory structural equation modeling was used to analyze the survey responses. The final model retained 11 items in a 4-factor solution (High-risk situations [3 items], Postassault support for victims [2 items], Postassault reporting of perpetrators [2 items], and Proactive opportunities [4 items]), demonstrating very good model fit: χ2/df (17, N =2,028) = 13.82, p < .001; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .99; TLI = .97; WRMR = .67."
## [157] "CFA verified a four-factor solution: Efficacy for Student Motivation, Student Achievement, Relationships with Students, and Teaching. The model fit was satisfactory: chi-sqared (59, N = 315) = 129.51, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .03)."
## [158] "CFA verified a single-factor model. Factor loadings were acceptable with the exception of the loading on Item 3 and Item 7. The model fit was acceptable: chi-squared (162, N = 593) = 373.6, p < .0001; CFI = .926; TLI = .913; RMSEA = .047 (90%CI: .041–.053), pclose = .785; SRMR .050."
## [159] "Various EFAs and CFAs were conducted, ultimately leading to a 5-item, unidimensional measure. When the Mindfulness at Work Scale was tested among other scales used in the study as part of a 7-factor measurement model, the fit indices, after allowing one pair of items in the work engagement scale to correlate, showed that the model fit the data: χ² (607, n=503)=2,354, p<0.001; CFI=0.96; NFI=0.95; RMSEA=0.076). All of the standardized path loadings were significant (p<0.001)."
## [160] "CFA was performed on a measurement model that included the four variables from the Self-Reported Intimate Partner Aggression Perpetration Measure as well as variables for anger, jealousy, and romantic relationship attachment. The model fit was adequate, χ²(993, N=596)=5,689.89, p<.001, comparative fit index (CFI)=.98, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)=.97, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.04, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR)=.03, and all standardized factor loadings were significant."
## [161] "CFA results confirmed the 3-factor structure (social support, interconnectedness, and community participation) for both scales (Religious Capital: χ²(23, N = 311) = 53.32, p<.001, χ²/df = 2.31, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = .04 to .09, CFI = .98, TLI = .96; Spiritual Capital: χ²(22, N = 311) = 44.21, p<.01, χ²/df = 2.01, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = .03 to .08, CFI = .98, TLI = .97. Model parameters were comparable."
## [162] "A PCA, which was directly tested with a CFA, confirmed the proposed three-factor model (Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Intention to Comfort) resulting in 14 final items [S-Bχ² (df = 74, N = 625) = 230.59, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.055; CFI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.058, 90% C.I. = 0.050, 0.067]. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.450 to 0.861."
## [163] "Factor Analysis: Factor analysis based on the total group of patients (N = 287) revealed 4 factors with eigenvalues> 1 (Kaiser criterion). Since the last factor explained less than 5% variance, only the first 3 factors were explained, which accounted for 65.0% of the total variance. A corresponding 3-factor analysis barely reflected the expected 3-component structure (IDAF-4C, IDAF-P and IDAF-S), and even an oblique rotation was no better interpretation."
## [164] "Structural equation modelling supported the model of 7 factors (Passive leadership, Role overload, Role conflict, Role ambiguity, Psychological work fatigue, Mental health, and Overall work attitude) as a good fit for the data: χ2 [197, n = 2467) = 1058.95, p<0.001; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; and RMSEA = 0.042 (90% CI (0.040, 0.045)]."
## [165] "CFA indicated a 34-item four-factor solution reflecting the Mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, and Superwoman stereotypes. The four-factor model was compared to the null model and a three-factor model. The chi-square results were significantly different for the proposed four-factor model and the null model, suggesting that the four-factor model is the best fit, χ2(6, N = 147) = 440.025, p < .001. Although there were few differences between the three-factor and four-factor model, the data suggest that the four-factor model had the greatest degree of fit."
## [166] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA yielded a bifactor model of online privacy competence. Model fit: WLSMV, χ2 (150) = 598.56, p <.001, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04, WRMR = 1.44, n = 1945."
## [167] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA revealed 4 factors that elucidated 65.29% of the total variance. For this solution, an acceptable model fit resulted (4-factor model: χ2 [448, N = 164] = 988.07, p = .00, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .08, AIC = 15363.92; factor charges: .57 ≤ a ≤ .92). Measurement invariance: Tests of measurement invariance indicated no differences between boys and girls."
## [168] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA yielded a five-factor structure. The model was an acceptable fit to the data: chi-square (164, N = 109) = 84.62, p < .01; chi-square/ sd = 1.73; RMSEA = .081 (90% confidence interval for RMSEA = .065-.097); NNFI = .94; IFI = 95; CFI = .94; SRMR = .082. A 3-factor structure was also within acceptable limits: chi-square (167, N = 109) = 327.90, p <.01; chi-square/ sd = 1.96; RMSEA = 0.089 (90% confidence interval for RMSEA = .078-.10); NNFI = .92; IFI = 93; CFI = .93; SRM = .088."
## [169] "EFA yielded a single latent variable with 14 indicators, and this model fitted the data fairly well (x² [df = 77, N = 983] = 147.90, p < .001, RMSEA = .031 [90% CI: .023–.038], CFI = .977, TLI = .973). The CFA performed on the calibration sample showed similar results (x² [df = 77, N = 983] = 148.12, p < .001, RMSEA = .030 [90% CI .023–.037], CFI = .971, TLI = .963)."
## [170] "All scales (Efficiency, Economic value, Visual appeal, Entertainment, Service excellence, Escapism, and Intrinsic enjoyment) were subject to factor analysis and found to be unidimensional. Unidimensionality was assessed by examining the pattern of standardized residuals and the modification indices generated from a CFA. Indices generated by this measurement model suggest acceptable fit in the Internet context [x² = 229.66 (131df.), (p = .000); RMSEA = 0.060; GFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.96; n = 213] (Brown & Cudeck, 1992)."
## [171] "CFA confirmed that the hierarchical structure (math learning anxiety and math test anxiety loading on a second-order factor called academic math anxiety) showed the best fit to the data (x²(166, N = 563) = 361.22; RMSEA = .046; SRMR = .045; NNFI = .94; CFI = .95)."
## [172] "EFA and CFA resulted in a structure with 8 factors across 4 dimensions. The results of the chi-square showed a good fit to the model (df=1,048, N=1,595, chi-square=3,432.09, p<.001); the ratio of the chi-square statistics to the degrees of freedom (chi-square/df) in the model was 3.28, which was higher than the conventional critical ratio cutoff of 2.0. The GFI was 0.91 and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index was 0.90, suggesting a good fit. The comparative fit index and non-normed fit index were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively, where values close to 1.0 indicate good fit. The model produced a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) equal to 0.04."
## [173] "The factor structure of the SBS-13 was investigated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis which identified 2 facets (Psychological Avoidance and Spiritualizing) with a second order facet (Spiritual Bypass). The final model replicated the two-factor structure of the SBS with indications of reasonably good fit: χ² (62, N=313)=232.47, p<.001; Chi Square Minimum (CMIN)/df=3.75; comparative fit index (CFI)=.94, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)=.05, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.09. All of the items loaded significantly onto the two factors and ranged from .62 to .82."
## [174] "The EwC model with broadband positive and negative factors demonstrated excellent fit, χ2 (546, N = 564) = 547.5, p > .10, RMSEA = .002, 95% CI .000–.014, CFI = 1.0, SRMR = .038. Proactive Parenting (.75), Positive Reinforcement (.77), Warmth (.56), and Supportiveness (.69) all had significant factor loadings onto the Broadband Positive Parenting factor. Additionally, partial support emerged for a Broadband Negative Parenting factor with Hostility (.88), Lax Control (.39), and Physical Control (.46) all having significant factor loadings—albeit with Hostility being the primary narrowband factor."
## [175] "EFAs (with Promax rotation) were carried out to explore the number of factors to retain. Items that did not comply with the requirements for retention were eliminated. EFA analyses were repeated after the elimination of each item. A final EFA was performed with the retained 23 items, extracting 5 factors (self-management of BD, turning point, self-care, self-confidence, and interpersonal support), which conjointly explained 57.04% of the variance. The factor structure of the 23-item RBD derived from the final EFA was examined within the clinical sample by carrying out a CFA. The hierarchical CFA model with five first-order latent factors and one second-order factor produced acceptable fit indexes: χ²(225, N = 113) = 374.38, p = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.077 (90% CI [0.063, 0.090]), NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.93. All factor loadings were significant."
## [176] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The following indices were obtained: chi-square (35, N= 332)= 67,39; p< 0,001; chi-square/gl= 1,92; CFI= 0,95; IFI= 0,95; TLI= 0,93; RSMR= 0,05; RMSEA= 0,04. These results support the validity of the measure."
## [177] "Data from all three studies (n =548) were used to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. For studies 2 and 3, only the data from the first administration of the CBI were used. The SCREE plot indicated a single dominant factor was present. In fact, separate exploratory factor analyses on the data from each study consistently indicated a single dominant factor, accounting for between 42 and 53% of the variance. There was no evidence across the studies for a consistent alternative factor structure beyond the single factor model."
## [178] "EFA identified 5 factors (Preference for Friend or Acquaintance, Preference for Knowledgeable Partner, Preference for Controversial Partner, Preference for Formal Partner, and Preference for Family or Relative) explaining 50.8% of the variance. CFA was fitted to replicate the observed correlation matrices within each of the three age groups. Fit statistics of this final model were x²(495, N = 475) = 734.4, p < .01 (x²/df = 1.48; RMSEA = .055)."
## [179] "Principal components analyses yielded a single factor solution for this scale, accounting for 62% of the item variance. Confirmatory factor analysis of a larger measurement model (self-efficacy, achievement motivation, experience, collective efficacy, and individual performance) showed that a freely estimated model fit the data well, χ2 (80, N = 122) = 125.41, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation = .068; and all indicators significantly loaded on their respective factor, p < .05 (standardized loadings ranged from .53–.97)."
## [180] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A principal factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation extracted a three-factor model (Behavioral Invalidation, Phenotype Invalidation, Identity Incongruent Discrimination) for 70.19% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit indices were adequate: 2(51, N = 297) = 78.47, p <.01, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .97, and TLI = .97. All items had factors loadings above .6 for each of their respective factors and were significant."
## [181] "CFA results indicated that the model provided a good fit for the data (χ² (113, N=525) 363.54, CFI=.99, RMSEA=.07) for the following four scales: Choice, Effort, Persistence, and Procrastination."
## [182] "The a priori 16-factor confirmatory factor model fit the data adequately according to indices of approximate fit, though the null hypothesis of exact fit was rejected, χ²(3, 365, N = 895) = 5,863.5, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) estimate = .029, 90% CI (confidence interval) = [.028, .030], comparative fit index (CFI) = .935, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .931. Given the great degree of parsimony in this simple-structure model, the authors interpreted these results as support of the hypothesized structure. Loadings ranged from .35 to .94, with a median standardized loading of .76. Invariance by race was tested with a two-group factor model. This model also fit the data adequately by the authors' considerations, χ²(6, 867, N = 885) = 8,926.1, p < .001, RMSEA estimate = .026, 90% CI = [.024, .028], CFI = .935, TLI = .933."
## [183] "EFA with varimax rotation confirmed the presence of the two 6-item factors (Integration and Perseverance), with eigenvalues higher than 1.00 and an accumulated contribution rate of 58.36%. CFA fit indices ( chi-squared(N = 871, df = 53) = 297.207, chi-squared/df = 5.608, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.074, GFI = 0.944, AGFI = 0.918, PGFI = 0.641, IFI = 0.950, and SRMR = 0.037) were all adequate in accordance with the cutoff criteria; however, RMR = 0.125 > 0.05 was inadequate. The overall fit of the model was satisfactory."
## [184] "Results of EFA supported a 2-factor structure: Rejection of Biracial People and Forced Black Identity. CFA supported this structure. χ²(34, N = 164) = 99.19, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.08, .14], comparative fit index (CFI) = .86, and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .82. All items had factors loadings above .5 for each of their respective factors and were significant."
## [185] "CFA results revealed that there was no significant difference between the observed data and the model, χ²(134, N = 53) = 147.385, p = .203. The model fit indices showed the following values: goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.769, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.873, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.987, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.987, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04. The CFA statistics indicated that the ADHD scale reflected the two-factor model of ADHD. The correlation between the two factors (Inattentive and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity) achieved a very good level r(51) = .79, p < .001. The standardized regression weights of the Inattention factor ranged between .77 and .93, and those of the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity factor ranged between .72 and .96."
## [186] "CFA yielded a 7-factor solution: Self-determined motivation, Perceived competence, Perceived autonomy, Perceived relatedness, Behavioral Intentions, Ego-Involving climate, and Task-Involving climate. The measurement model provided an adequate fit to the data, x²(56, N=335)=68.61, p>0.10, GFI=1.00; NFI=1.00; CFI=1.00; RMSR=0.04."
## [187] "Findings from an exploratory factor analysis (n = 235) and a confirmatory factor analysis (n = 130) revealed a two-factor structure, including a five-item Attitudes subscale and a five-item Behaviors subscale. Together, these factors explained 72% of the variance."
## [188] "A measurement model of five strategies (excluding 3 of the 8 overall strategies for further analyses) showed good fit: X-squared (3,N = 599) = 8.33, p = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.02, CFI = 0.99]."
## [189] "A one-factor model with 5 items showed a better fit for the adolescent sample. For the adult sample, a one-factor model with six items showed the following adjustment indexes: χ2 (9, N = 331) = 18.195, p = .033; χ2/df = 2.02; CFI = .98; TLI = .98; IFI = .98; RMSEA = .056 (IC 90 % = .015-.093); SRMR = .024. Results confirmed invariance across genders."
## [190] "Exploratory factor analyses extracted two factors: Integration (9 items) and Perseverance (3 items). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 2-factor model assuming equal factor loadings over time. The overall fit of this model was generally good: chi-squared (N = 205; df = 53) = 89.55, p < .0001; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .05."
## [191] "Item analysis (Dataset 1; N=1324): CFAs were conducted to assess unidimensionality. The theorised structure of the DRSEQ-RA (3 factors with a higher order factor) was compared to a single factor model. As the theorised model was a better fit to the data (χ² diff(dfdiff)=182.28(3), p<.001), IRT analyses were conducted on subscales rather than the whole scale. Smoothing parameters of 0.62, 0.85, and 0.79 were used for the Social Pressure, Emotional Relief, and Opportunistic analyses respectively due to non-monotonicity. Psychometric analyses (Dataset 2; N=1285): When the shortened scale was analysed using CFA, analyses feedback indicated the presence of negative error variances. Examination of the CFA on the total scale revealed that item 5 of the Opportunistic subscale had the least item variance (0.08). Item 5 was replaced with item 14. Item 14 had the next greatest Mokken H index score and had greater variance (0.14). The CFA on the new shortened scale showed good fit to the data."
## [192] "Exploratory (n = 250) and confirmatory factor analyses (n = 206) supported a 5-factor solution (Positive engagement, Indirect care, Frustration, Warmth and attunement, and Control and process). The initial variance accounted for by the five factors (58.53% in total) was as follows: 26.05%, 16.70%, 6.88%, 4.66%, and 4.23%. All items loaded on their respective factors and met item retention criteria."
## [193] "The values for CFA indicated that the relevant tools have acceptable construct validity: the absolute fit indices of 1- chi-square (χ²) had a value of 596.108 (degrees of freedom (df)=139, N=1019) and CMTN/DF=4.09, 2- GFI=0.93 and 3- RMSEA=0.05. The adjusted fit indices statistic obtained: 1- CFI=0/92, 2- IFI=0/92, 3- NFI=0/90 and 4- TLI=0/90. Also, brevity fit indices statistic obtained respectively: AGFI=0.91, PCFI=0.74 and PNFI=0.73."
## [194] "Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported the 14-factor model using data from two other independent samples: an Eastern sample from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (n = 229) and a Western sample from the United States (n = 214). The factors were labeled Emotional Fulfillment; Success; Empathic Consideration; Basic Health and Safety/Optimism; Emotional Opennes and Spontaneity; Self-Compassion; Healthy Boundaries/Developed Self; Social Belonging; Healthy Self-Control/Self-Discipline; Realistic Expectations; Self-Directedness; Healthy Self-Interest/Self-Care; Stable Attachment; and Healthy Self-Reliance/Competence."
## [195] "As the HCCQ is considered a 1-factor scale (Williams et al., 1996, 1998b), a confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) was conducted to corroborate previous findings. A CFA with maximum likelihood estimation showed an excellent fit following Hu and Bentley’s as well as Kline’s criteria (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2013; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99; comparative fit index (CFI) = .99; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06, 90 percent confidence interval (CI) (.00, .11); standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02; χ² (8, N = 235) = 13.99, p = .08). The factor loadings ranged from .74 to .90."
## [196] "Thirty-five frequency items were submitted to EFA. Kaiser–Guttman criterion and scree plot initially suggested a 5-factor solution, whereas Horn’s parallel analysis initially suggested a 4-factor solution. However, when a priori factor-loading criteria were applied to both the 4- and 5-factor solutions, each solution was reduced to 25 items and 3 factors. The remaining 25 items were submitted to a second EFA which resulted in a 3-factor solution in which all items loaded strongly on their primary factors without significant cross-loadings. The factors were Proximal: Frequency, Distal: Frequency, and Muscularity: Frequency. CFA was then conducted; results indicated that the 25-item, 3-factor solution generally provided less than acceptable fit to the data. Following item elimination, a 3-item/subscale solution provided good fit according to the CFI and SRMR, and significantly improved fit according to the chi-square, χ² (24, N=771)=179.37, p<.001, CFI=.97, RMSEA=.09, SRMR=.03."
## [197] "CFA verified a 7-factor solution: Satisfaction with life, Upward assimilative emotions, Upward contrastive emotions, Downward contrastive emotions, Downward assimilative emotions, Ability-based SC orientation, and Opinion-based SC orientation. The goodness-of-fit indices yielded by the CFA were acceptable: x² (378, N = 331) = 3972.91, p < 0.001, CFI) = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05 [90% CI], [0.04, 0.05]), and SRMR = 0.04."
## [198] "EFA was conducted on 14 items. Three eigenvalues were greater than 1, but the scree plot revealed a clear break after 2 factors. Therefore, a 2-factor solution was examined. All items except the 3 negatively worded items loaded above .60 on 1 of the 2 factors, with no cross-loadings above .15. The negatively worded items were eliminated. A second FA using the remaining 11 items yielded two factors with eigenvalues above 1, which were weakly correlated at r=.06. Scree plot and parallel analysis criterion values also supported a 2-factor solution. CFA compared the fit of a baseline 1-factor solution with that of a 2-factor model. The fit of the baseline model was less than acceptable. Most indicators for the 2-factor model, with the spiritual and physical oneness items loading on separate factors, suggested good fit: χ²(43, N=659)=266.68, p<.001; RMSEA (90% CI)=.09 (.08–.10); CFI=.96; NNFI=.95; SRMR=.07."
## [199] "CFA results supported the dichotomous pride model across the different samples. For the undergraduate sample (N=270), the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test (SB χ²) showed that the dichotomous pride model provided a better fit to the data than the single pride model, SB χ²(1) = 174.60, p < .001. Akaike information criterion and sample-size corrected Bayesian information criterion were considerably lower for the dichotomous than for the single pride model, which also suggests that the dichotomous pride model is preferable to the single pride model. For the primary school student sample, SB χ²(1) = 14.90, p < .001."
## [200] "CFA suggested that the DASS-21 is a measure of general distress, but also comprises three orthogonal dimensions (anxiety, depression, and stress). The bifactor model resulted the best factor solution, χ² (168, n = 417) = 271.292, p < .001; NNFI = .975; CFI = .980; RMSEA = .038."
## [201] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Summarizing, the results on the first sub-group of the general population sample (n = 260) showed that the one-factor solution met all the criteria for an optimal fit. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The one-factor model showed an excellent fit (CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .05), consistent with the EFA results."
## [202] "The PCA of the first subsample (n=510) using a Varimax rotation reduced the eleven items of the RFQ to two components: A prevention factor with an eigenvalue of 2.75 (explaining 25% of total variance) as well as a promotion factor with an eigenvalue of 2.18 (explaining an additional 20% of total variance). With the exception of Item 3, which loaded on its factor with .46, all items exhibited loadings of .60 and higher. The two-factor model was subsequently tested in the CFA using the second subsample (n=514). The exclusion of Item 3 led to sizable improvements across all fit indices. Loadings ranged between .54 and .74 for the prevention factor and between .41 and .52 for the promotion factor, except for Item 3, which loaded very weakly on its factor with .29. After removal of Item 3, the promotion factor loadings improved slightly to between .42 and .54. The correlation of the latent factors was r=.12 with and r=.15 without Item 3."
## [203] "CFA yielded 7 factors: Environmental conservation (EC) benefits accruing in present, EC benefits accruing in future, Attitude toward nature, Human–nature balance, Supportive behavior, Active behavior, and Lifestyle behavior. The fit indices for the SEM model in all groups were at or above acceptable levels: Full sample (n = 1599): Chi-square = 4971.78 (df = 647); IFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07."
## [204] "Factor analysis: Results indicated a two-factor solution showed an appropriate global model-fit (chi-square [53, N = 189] = 71.31, Bollen–Stine p = .164, chi-square /df = 1.35, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.01, .07], SRMR = .04). Measurement invariance: Across genders, Δchi-square test was significant (p < .001) when comparing models B and C with a substantial decrease in CFI (Δ CFI = .03), indicating that the postulated two-factor structure was equivalent in both groups and that boys and girls show a comparable item responsiveness."
## [205] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded an 8-factor solution. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA revealed a 9-factor solution after modifications, with this final model showing excellent fit: chi-square = (N = 294, df = 521) 863.136, p < .001; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .047."
## [206] "Factor validity: χ² (35, N = 800) = 120.54, RMSEA = .055, 95% CI = [0.045, 0.66], GFI = .951."
## [207] "CFA of the Spanish DTS replicated the original model of Simons and Gaher (2005) consisting of four lower order factors of tolerance, appraisal, regulation, and absorption that loaded onto a higher-order general factor. The hypothesized model was a good fit to the data χ² (86, N = 650) = 407.64, p<.001, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .076, WRMR = 1.02. Standardized factor loadings were all significant at p<.001 and ranged from 0.60-0.97."
## [208] "Part of a larger measurement model, CFA for the hypothesized two-factor (academic buoyancy and academic resilience) model yielded a good fit to the data, x² (19, N=918)=106.51, p<0.001, CFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.071. SEM revealed the model fit the data well, x² (455, N=918)=1061.12, p<0.001, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.038."
## [209] "EFA of the initial items revealed an 11-factor solution. After eliminating poorly performing items, CFA of the final 31-item 11-factor measurement model indicated acceptable data fit: chi-square(322, N = 590) = 720.86, p < .001, GFI = .92, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05. The 11 factor-based constructs included: Attitudes toward customization, Subjective norms peers, Subjective norms parents, Perceived behavioural control, Intention to engage in customization, Creative choice counterconformity, Unpopular choice counterconformity, Avoidance of similarity, Customization knowledge, Budget constraint, and Time constraint."
## [210] "CFA reveled a 9-factor solution: Utilitarian Function, Value-Expressive Function, Self-Esteem Maintenance Function, Attitudes, Subjective Norms, Collective efficacy, Intentions, Self-Esteem, Future Orientation. CFA showed that measurement model fit the data well, indicating scale items loaded on their respective factors: χ²(459, N = 516) = 1341.4, p < .001, RMSEA = .061, 90% CI of RMSEA [.057, .065], and CFI = .97, SRMR = .057. The second step estimated both the measurement model and a structural model. The model fit the data well: χ²(608, N = 516) = 1645.6, p < .001, RMSEA = .058, 90% CI of RMSEA [.054, .061], CFI = .97, and SRMR = .07."
## [211] "CFA of a randomly generated sub-set of the data (n=761) yielded reasonably good fit to the data (Model χ²=6187.226, df=2211, χ²/df=2.798, NFI=0.887, TLI=0.920, CFI=0.924, SRMR=0.038, RMSEA=0.040, RMSEA 90% confidence interval=0.047-0.050, PCLOSE=0.940). Despite all standardized loadings being significant, the NFI, TLI, CFI, and the χ² ratio were not quite at generally accepted criteria. Inspection of the modification indices suggested opportunities to improve model fit by deleting a number of redundant items. Apart from retaining all nine engagement items, three to six items with high loadings and smaller modification indices were retained for each measured construct. The re-specified CFA yielded improved and acceptable fit (χ²=3160.453, df=1259, χ²/df=2.510, NFI=0.921, TLI=0.946, CFI=0.951, SRMR=0.034, RMSEA=0.045, RMSEA 90% confidence interval=0.043-0.047, PCLOSE=1.00). The structural model yielded good fit to the data: χ²=4942.231, df=1285, χ²/df=3.846."
## [212] "EFA and CFA revealed 4 main factors (Formal safety program, Informal Aspects of Safety, Operations Personnel, Organizational commitment) and 11 subfactors (Reporting system, Safety personnel, Accountability, Pilots' authority, Professionalism, Chief pilots, Dispatch, Instructors/trainers, Safety values, Safety fundamentals, Going beyond compliance). Reliability and unidimensionality (i.e., fit to a single-factor model) were tested for each of the regrouped subscales for which there were sufficient data available in the existing data set (fit could not be tested for the safety personnel, dispatcher, and instructor scales because these contained too few items): x²( 1,238, N = 427) = 2246.95, p < .001; RMSEA = .04, NFI = .80, TLI = .89, RNI = .90."
## [213] "Construct validity was established through factor analysis (PCA; N=362). Four factors emerged and were named as Interactional Problems, Educational Problems, Fear of being Ridiculed and Psychological/Personal Problems."
## [214] "A series of CFAs with structural equation modeling were conducted. Following the removal of items with very low beta weights and percentage of variance, a CFA on the remaining items of the 2 factors and an additional factor that asked about deterioration in neighborhood environment was conducted. Although the chi square continued to be significant, χ²(149, N = 163) = 206.552, p < .001, there was an improvement in the other indexes (eg, CFI = .91, RMSEA - .05, TLI = .90). in terms of ease of comparison with US samples in which the 2-factor solution has been used, the authors made the decision to keep the 2 factors distinct and to simply add the Deterioration in the Neighborhood factor."
## [215] "First order confirmatory analyses showed that the comparative fit indexes for the physical, psychological, social and environmental domains were 0.945, 0.948, 1.0 and 0.837, respectively. CFI of the second order analysis was 0.898 (X = 447,744 with 235 degrees of freedom, N = 301, p < 0.001)."
## [216] "PCA: Items related to the CPAP device loaded most strongly on one factor across the scales. This dimension was therefore labelled the Device subscale. Items related to symptoms of the CPAP treatment loaded on the other factor. This was labelled the Symptom subscale. Even though the factor solutions were similar across the scales, a large amount of items (n = 8) in the Frequency scale demonstrated communality values <0.3. The Frequency scale also demonstrated lower total explained variance (33%) than the Magnitude scale (40%) and the Impact scale (46%). The cross-validation of the factor models (i.e. a random split of the sample in two groups followed by a new PCA) demonstrated that the factor structure was fully reproduced for the Magnitude scale and the Impact scale. However, the factor structure was not reproduced for the Frequency scale as five items loaded on different factors compared with the factor analysis on the whole sample."
## [217] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to assess two competing hope models (i.e., enhanced hope, peaceful hope). Results confirmed a higher-order model comprised of enhanced hope and peaceful hope. The model combined four factors (Agency thinking and Pathway thinking for enhanced hope, Transcendental adaptation and Persisting effort for peaceful hope), with acceptable fit indices demonstrated: NNFI = .98; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .06; chi-square (72, N = 665) = 252.99, p <.001. Factor loadings were between .54 and .90, with all reaching statistically significant levels (all Ps < .001)."
## [218] "CFA yielded 6 factors: Goal Setting, Environment Structuring, Task Strategies, Time Management, Help Seeking, and Self-Evaluation. Results indicated χ²(224) =346.642, p < .000, CFI = .977, TLI = .971, RMSEA = .036 (N = 412); χ²(221) = 412.878, p < .000, CFI = .959, TLI = .949, RMSEA = .048 (N = 374). Thus, the sample provided an acceptably good fit of the data to the model."
## [219] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded a 3-factor solution explaining 43.7% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA supported the 3-factor structure in both subsamples: chi-square dif(4, n = 359) = 79.534 and chi-square dif(4, n = 361) = 61,658."
## [220] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The four-factor model (Plausibility, Completeness, Consistency, Coverage) exhibited good fit, S–B χ2 =(48, N =474)=104.14, p<.001, RMSEA=.05 (90% CI: .037–.063), NNFI=.99, CFI=.99."
## [221] "The authors tested the five-factor model presented in the manual of the HCTA test through a CFA to analyze its factorial structure. They tested a measurement model (M1) and analyzed its goodness-of-fit. Scores for the free-recall items in all five dimensions were hypothesized to load on a latent factor designated (CTfree), while scores for the multiple-choice items in all five dimensions were hypothesized to load on a latent factor designated (CTrec). The indices considered to decide on the model's goodness- of-fit supported the five-factor structure presented for the original HCTA test with acceptable (PCFI and PGFI) to good (χ²/df, CFI, GFI, and RMSEA) fit. The goodness-of-fit was slightly lower in our sample, yet, accomplished (χ²[29, n = 334] = 58.6, p = .001; χ²/df = 2.02; CFI = .929; PCFI = .599; GFI = .966; PGFI = .509; RMSEA[CI90%] = .055[.035; .076]). For test of close fit (RMSEA < .05) = .308, SRMR = .0438."
## [222] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The hypothetical model consisted of five correlated latent variables: 1) Describe (5 items), 2) Act with awareness (5 items), 3) Nonjudge (5 items), 4) NonReact (5 items), and 5) Observe (4 items). The measurement errors of the items were not allowed to correlate. The solution showed adequate fit indices, Satorra-Bentler chi-square(242, n = 265) = 742, p < .001; RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [.07, .09], CFI = .93, NNFI = .92. All the factor loadings were statistically different from zero and higher than .40 (values between .44 and .95) except for items 8 and 11, which were somewhat lower (.34 and .28, respectively)."
## [223] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The results informed a one-factor solution in the first study that accounted for 60.7% of common variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: In Study 2 (n = 1041), the analysis showed that the single-factor and the four-factor models showed satisfactory and adequate goodness of fit indices, respectively. This analysis demonstrated that the four-factor structure (Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Intellectual Stimulation, and Inspirational Motivation) of transformational teaching with a high second-order factor, previously found in Canadian adolescents, was replicated in this study. Evidence of measurement invariance across gender groups was also obtained."
## [224] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Fit indices for the EFA suggested that a two-factor solution with nine items best fit the data, chi-square(19, N = 89) = 22.59, p = .26, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.01, .11], SRMR = .02. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The full sample model indicated a nine-item, two-factor model fit the data best, chi-square(23, N = 298) = 71.46, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [.06, .11], SRMR = .03. A second-order model and a higher order global score model did not fit the data better than the two-factor model."
## [225] "CFA revealed an 8-factor solution: Egoistic Values, Biospheric/Altruistic Values, Perceived Consumer Effectiveness, Perceived lack of climate-change knowledge, Pro-Environmental Self-Identity, Social Consumption Motivation, Buying, and Curtailment. The results for the multi-group measurement model demonstrated acceptable fit: χ2(586) = 1910.47, p ≤ 0.001, χ2/df= 3.26, CFI =0.91, TLI= 0.90, RMSEA = 0.038, critical N = 515 at p =0.05."
## [226] "CFA was conducted on an eight-factor model that included non-work creative activity, recovery experiences, job creativity, organizational citizenship behaviors, and openness to experience. The model had adequate fit with chi-squared(413, N = 341) = 990.60, p < .001, SRMR = .06, CFI = .94, and RMSEA = .06. The authors also compared the eight-factor model with different models that had the creative activity items load onto one of the remaining factors. No other model tested had adequate fit."
## [227] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFNI-45 nine-factor model (Relational, Sweet and Nice, Invest in Appearance, Domestic, Romantic Relationship, Modesty, Sexual Fidelity, Thinness, and Care for Children) surpassed or approximated cutoffs for acceptable fit on all indicators, χ2(909, N = 243) = 1,384.55, p < .001, RMSEA = .044, 90% CI: .042, .051, SRMR = .0647, CFI = .89. All factor loadings for this model were significant."
## [228] "Overall fit of the original 3-factor model including all 14 items was insufficient. Therefore, EFA was conducted, revealing 4 factors (i.e., Sexual Excitation Scale 1, Sexual Excitation Scale 2, Sexual Inhibition Scale 1, and Sexual Inhibition Scale 2). As Item 9 showed substantial double loadings with the third factor, it was excluded from further analyses. Another CFA using the complete sample indicated a good fit of the 4-factor 13-item model, χ²(59, N = 2,661) = 664.026, p < .001, CFI = .969, RMSEA = .062."
## [229] "EFA and CFA were conducted using a split-sample technique. Results revealed that five factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) accounted for 76.01% of the total variance. The items were grouped according to the original structure of TIPI with the exception of one. CFA of the proposed model did not fit the data adequately. CFA of a revised model that correlated items previously shown to cross-load fit the data well: χ2(25, N = 200) = 46.55, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.07, P(rmsea ≤ 0.05) = 0.18, with factor loadings above 0.37, ps < 0.001."
## [230] "Part of a larger measurement model, the indicators of the constructs included in the CFA were their respective items. The overall model provided satisfactory fit to the data ( x²[df = 377, N = 286] = 816.49 ; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .92; SRMR = .06)."
## [231] "Part of a larger measurement model, the indicators of the constructs included in the CFA were their respective items. The overall model provided satisfactory fit to the data ( x²[df = 377, N = 286] = 816.49 ; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .92; SRMR = .06)."
## [232] "As part of a larger measurement model, the indicators of the constructs included in the CFA were their respective items. The overall model provided satisfactory fit to the data ( x²[df = 377, N = 286] = 816.49 ; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .92; SRMR = .06)."
## [233] "Part of a larger measurement model, the indicators of the constructs included in the CFA were their respective items. The overall model provided satisfactory fit to the data ( x²[df = 377, N = 286] = 816.49 ; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .92; SRMR = .06)."
## [234] "CFA of the single-factor structure using mothers' data (14 items) showed acceptable fit of the model to the data: χ2[71, N=303]=181.29, χ2/df=2.55, RMSEA=0.072, GFI=0.92, CFI=0.90, AGFI=0.87. Fit indices were acceptable for fathers' data (14 items) as well: χ2[71, N=303]=192.57, χ2/df=2.71, RMSEA=0.075, GFI=0.92, CFI=0.93, AGFI=0.88."
## [235] "EFA and CFA revealed a 3-component measure with 3 separate subscales: Exhaustion, Cynicism, and Professional efficacy. Results showed that the model fit the data well: ΔCFI = -0.009, ΔRMSEA = 0.000, and ΔSRMR = 0.004. Structural invariance (M4) was also supported because adding additional constraints to M3 did not change the fit significantly: ΔCFI = -0.004, ΔRMSEA = 0.002, and ΔSRMR = 0.004. LPA was tested with two-six profiles, revealing Profile 1 (n = 2665, 34.2%) labeled as “burned-out” as it had high levels of EX, CY, and low PE. Profile 2 (n = 3953, 51.0%) was labeled as “overextended” as it had (moderately) high levels of exhaustion, moderate other. Finally, profile 3 (n = 1149, 14.8%) was labeled as “engaged” as it had moderate EX, low CY, and high PE."
## [236] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded a 2-factor solution Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA confirmed the model, revealing an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (53, N=220)=137.86, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.09."
## [237] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFA of the six-factor model showed the model had an acceptable degree of fit for the IGD-20 Test: X2 (155, n = 1074) = 769.07, p < .0001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92 RMSEA = .05 (90% CI: .053-.062)."
## [238] "All 56 initial items were entered into an EFA with Varimax rotation. Four factors were extracted: Lack of Symptomatic Behavior (LSB); Acceptance of Self and Body (ASB); Social and Emotional Connection (AEC); and Physical Health (PH). In an attempt to shorten the questionnaire and to eliminate items that loaded onto more than one factor, the seven highest loading items of each subscale were selected. A Varimax rotation was used in a further EFA and restricted to a four-factor solution. The factors had Eigen values of 7.57, 4.22, 4.09, and 2.78, respectively, with a cumulative explained variance of 66.64%. Item factor loading was restricted to >0.30 and seven items loaded onto each factor. CFA verified this 28-item four-factor model with excellent fit to the data: χ2(314, N = 224) = 493.63, p > 0.001; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.05; standardized RMR = 0.06."
## [239] "Principal axis factor analysis (PAF)/Principal Components Analysis: PCA was conducted supporting the retention of five factors, and the deletion of items to suggest a 5 factor, 21-item solution. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Replicability was assessed using the confirmation sample. Multigroup CFA was conducted to test the invariance of the factor loadings in the five-factor model across the development and confirmation samples. Results revealed that the five-factor CFA model produced equivalent factor loadings for the two samples, Δχ2 (16, N=646) = 23.16 ,p=.11, thus strongly supporting the cross-sample generalizability of the five-factor measurement model. Furthermore, Replicating earlier results the five-factor CFA model fit the pooled sample well, χ2 (179,N=646 = 923.73, RMSEA=.082, SRMR=.063, CFI=.95, NNFI=.94, there by demonstrating that the five factors provide acceptable fit for the 21items in the pooled sample."
## [240] "EFA and CFA revealed a 3-factor solution: Stress, Anxiety, and Depression. The fit indexes of the model with 21 item and triple structure were examined and minimum chi-square value was significant [χ2 (39, N= 101) =74.57, p=0.00)]. Fit index values were found as GFI=0.951, CFI=0.956, TLI=0.925, RMSEA=0.044, SRMR=0.046, supporting structural (construct) validity."
## [241] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted separately for perpetration and victimization using AMOS18 resulting in a four-factor structure. The findings of CFA were cross-validated with an independent sample of older dating college students. The results showed an adequate model fit, χ2 (344, N = 328) =1,097.35, Bollen-Stine corrected p = .00; χ2/df ratio = 3.19; RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = .08,.09); SRMR = .07; CFI = .83. The bootstrapped standardized factor loadings ranged between .49 and .72 for RE, .45 and .85 for DEN, .56 and .84 for HW, and .37 and .81 for D/I (Table 3). Only item 27 (13%) was below the 20% explained variance criterion for squared multiple correlations. None of the ITCs was below .30. In short, the four-factor structure was cross-validated with an older sample of dating college students and the results provided further empirical evidence for construct validity of the MMEA-TR."
## [242] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA extracted four factors that explained 51.465% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA verified the four-factor model: chi-square (N = 1647) = 1407.011 (p < 0.001), goodness-of-fit (GFI) = 0.917, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) = 0.894, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.068, root-mean-square residual (RMR) = 0.029, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.916, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.916, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.925, and incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.925."
## [243] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA of 10 items extracted two factors explaining 34% and 15% of the variance, respectively. Although there was a third possible factor, it only explained 10% of the variance and had only two items loading onto it. Because the scree plot suggest two meaningful factors, a two-factor solution for the 10 items was selected: Self-Evaluations of Patience and Importance of Patience. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The validity of the two-factor solution was verified via CFA. The two-factor model yielded a large and significant chi-square: chi-square(34, N = 323) = 127.41, p < .001. The CFI was also acceptable (.92), as was the RMSEA (.098)."
## [244] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA yielded the following fit statistics, which were indicative of good construct validity: chi-square (N = 1647) = 898.412 (p < 0.001); GFI = 0.933; AGFI = 0.906; RMSEA = 0.071; RMR = 0.017; NFI = 0.935; CFI = 0.941; and IFI = 0.941."
## [245] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA yielded the following fit statistics, which provided support for the measure's validity: chi-square (N = 1647) = 2590.141 (p < 0.001); GFI = 0.872; AGFI = 0.840; RMSEA = 0.085; RMR = 0.026; NFI = 0.935; CFI = 0.942; and IFI = 0.942."
## [246] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA extracted four factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After an initial CFA, the modification indices of the model indicated a good fit χ2(318, N=453) 465.45, pb0.000, χ2/df=1.46, GFI=0.93, NNFI=0.94, NFI=0.84, CFI=0.94."
## [247] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFAs using a split-sample technique provided robust support for the hypothesized six-factor model (Physical TV, Social TV, Verbal TV, CyberTV, Sexual Harassment, and Personal Property Offenses). In the first half of the sample, chi-squared=632.87 (df=246, N=846), p<.001; CFI=.921, RMSEA=.043, 90% CI=[.039, .047], and SRMR=.036. In the second half, chi-squared=655.14 (df=246, N=842), p<.001; CFI=.930, RMSEA=.044, 90% CI=[.040, .049], and SRMR=.038. Although support for a four-factor model was also obtained, the six-factor second-order model was selected because it is more parsimonious and consistent with conceptualizations of TV."
## [248] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA yielded a five-factor solution: Openness to changes at work, Work and career proactivity, Career motivation, Work and career resilience, and Work identity. The five factors associated with this solution accounted for 57.26% of the variance collectively, and 21.83, 15.17, 8.10, 6.44, and 5.72% of the variance, respectively. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The baseline five-factor measurement model fit the sample data: chi-square(265; N = 200) = 604.20, p < .001; CFI = .91; IFI = .91; and RMSEA = .08. All parameter estimates were significant."
## [249] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA of items tapping autonomy support, coercion, warmth, and hostility ultimately yielded a two-factor solution with eigenvalues of 6.88 and .3.64, explaining a total of 46% of the variance. EFA of items tapping structure and chaos yielded a two-factor solution with eigenvalues of 4.35 and 1.45, explaining 48% of the total item variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA verified the final four-factor model, which showed a good fit to the data on most indicators: χ²(230, N = 221) = 406.43, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.8, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .059 (90% CI .050 to .068, p = .06). ESEM identified a small number of cross-loadings for two of the four factors, however there was still support for maintaining them as separate subscales. This model fit the data well, and was a significant improvement over the four-factor model with no cross-loadings: χ²(220, N = 221) = 363.93, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.7, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .055 (90% CI .044 to .064, p = .22)."
## [250] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A series of EFAs were employed to produce a three-factor model. All items with a factor loading above 0.6 (with the exception of two items with loadings above 0.45) were retained in a final EFA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA of competing models showed the three-factor model fitted the data well: chi-square (df=50,N=322)=123.05; chi-square/df=2.5; GFI=0.94; RMSEA=0.07 (90 % confidence interval=0.05–0.08); NFI=0.91; CFI=0.95. The fit of a second-order model was identical, showing that it is plausible that a single second-order factor accounts for the associations among the three lower-order factors."
## [251] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The six-factor model (Emotional Functioning, Physical Functioning, Teasing/Marginalization, Positive Social Attributes, Mealtime Challenges, and School Functioning) produced an acceptable to very good fit to the data (x2=287.112, n=154, p<.001, RMSEA=0.055, CFI=0.971, TLI=0.966). However, the higher-order model assessing Total HRQOL did not reach acceptable levels, as results found that the Positive Social Attributes (PSA) subscale was not representative of Total HRQOL."
## [252] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA demonstrated that the DAQ-6 consists of two factors. CFA fit statistics supported an adequate fit of the data to a two factor model (CFI=.986; NFI=.972; TLI=.974; RMSEA=.092; GFI=.957). Similar results were found when the model was run with the nontransformed data, χ2(8, N=106)=14.46, p=.07 (CFI=.988; NFI= .974; TLI=.978; RMSEA=.088; GFI=.958). It should be noted that though the CFI, NFI, TLI and GFI values were all indicative of adequate model fit, the RMSEA value was slightly inflated."
## [253] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA yielded a one-factor solution. The model fit of one factor with four items was good, with chi-square(df = 2, N =264)=5.78, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .025, non-normed fit index (NNFI) = .99, comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, and incremental fit index (IFI) = .99."
## [254] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA using structural equation modeling showed a model fit for the four total domains of chi-squared (371, N = 129) = 936.34, p < .00, CFI = .93, GFI = .90, NFI = .88, RMSEA = .11. NFI and RMSEA were not satisfied at the recommended criterion levels; the other indicators did suggest a good fit. The researchers accepted the Turkish PICCOLO as having adequate fit."
## [255] "Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin found value was .74, and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity reached a statistical significant value of p < 0.001, x²(66, n = 200) = 618.67. The results yielded a 3-factor solution based on the selection of the eigenvalues larger than 1.0 which account for 55.39% of total variance explained. CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure. When a second-order factor (commitment) was added, the goodness-of-fit indexes still displayed very good values."
## [256] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After reversing Item 5, the results of the 7–item model yielded acceptable fit indexes: χ2(14, N = 398) = 45.91, p < .001; χ2/df = 3.28, CFI = .98; TLI = .96, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .076; 90% CI [.052, .101]; SRMR = .032. Measurement Invariance: Invariance across BMI was only partial, as significant differences were found between the unconstrained model and some of the invariant models."
## [257] "Exploratory factor analysis: Results of the EFA revealed that a 4-factor solution in both the FOS–Sexual Intercourse and FOS–Oral Sex Subscales, accounting for 62.05% and 62.28% of the total variance, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA on a separate sample of 398 heterosexual female undergraduates confirmed the factor structure of each subscale with excellent fit statistics for the FOS–Sexual Intercourse Subscale (Satorra– Bentler x²(521, N=312)=887.51, p\\.001, CFI=.95, RMSEA=.048 (90% CI=.042–.053)) and Satorra–Bentler x²(203, N=335)=432.00,p\\.001,CFI=.95,RMSEA=.058(90% CI=.050–.066) for the FOS–Oral Sex Subscale."
## [258] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA extracted four factors explaining 66.3% of the common variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit of the four-factor model was acceptable—S-B chi-square (84, N = 809) = 472.9, p < .001, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, SRMR = .070, RMSEA = .076 (90% CI = .069 ~ .082), AIC = 304.9, CAIC = -173.5."
## [259] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A 3-factor structure was determined: Conflict, Closeness, and Dependency. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit of the final model was adequate: χ2 (206, n = 628) = 930.24, p < .001, RMSEA = .075, and CFI = .95."
## [260] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The 7-factor CFA solution showed an acceptable fit in the validation sample (n = 4962), χ2 (254) = 3326.652, p < .001; CFI = .956; TLI = .948, RMSEA = .049 [90% CI: .048, .051], as well as invariance across age groups. Structural equation modeling: Importantly, a constrained SEM was not statistically different from an unconstrained SEM (i.e., Δχ2 (63) = 85.917, p = .029; ΔCFI = +.005), thereby attesting to the invariance across late childhood, early adolescence, and middle-late adolescence."
## [261] "Exploratory factor analysis: A visual scree test (Cattell, 1966) indicated that three factors emerged before the elbow of the scree plot of eigenvalues with the eigenvalues for the first three unrotated factors (i.e., virtue–admiration, dominance–fear, and competence–respect) to be 99.02, 19.67, and 15.93, representing 53.97, 10.72, and 8.68% of the total variance, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA confirmed that the three-factor structure of the SAS is a significantly better model (chi-square (87, N = 340) = 217.25, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .067, SRMR = .074, AIC = 283.25) than the two-factor model that places virtue– admiration as a component of competence–respect."
## [262] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA yielded a four-factor solution accounting for 44% of the item variance after five iterations. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA cross-validated the EFA results. The four-correlated factor model yielded mixed results. A model including correlated error terms for a pair of items in the Difficult Transition factor fitted the data well—chi-square (128, N = 202) = 148.81, p = .100; RMSEA = .028 [90% CI = .000, .046]; SRMR = .061; CFI = .928; TLI = .914."
## [263] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Parallel analysis results suggested a one-factor solution. A one-factor solution was also indicated by the scree plot. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFA model con strained the 12 CGS items to load onto a single factor. The fit statistics for this CFA model were as follows: chi-square(54, N = 218) 134.90, p < .001, CFI .956, SRMR .033, RMSEA .083 (90% CI [.066, .101]). Based on the general guidelines (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA all indicated a good data to model fit. Measurement Invariance: Multiple-Group CFA overall results indicate that the CGS demonstrated measurement and structural invariance between men and women in this sample."
## [264] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA revealed a 2-factor solution. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA yielded this factorial structure presented adequate goodness-of-fit indexes, chi-square (43, N = 574) = 1.32, p = .078, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .024 [.000, .039], SRMR = .029."
## [265] "Principal Factor Analysis: PFA of 42 candidate items yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor (eigenvalue = 21.40) accounted for 77.4% of the common factor variance. The 10 strongest loading items on the first factor (range = .815–.867) were included in the QVC. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After freeing the covariances for three pairs of items, fit indices for the final CFA model indicated good fit for the one-factor solution: χ2 (32, N = 224) = 66.41, p = .0003, CFI = .980, SRMR = .021, RMSEA = .06."
## [266] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA yielded four first-order factors. This model showed a good fit, chi-square (155, N = 1417) = 1184, RMSEA = .065 (90% I.C. = .062 - .069), NNFI = .990, CFI = .992. Moreover, hierarchical models indicated that these factors could be explained by broader dimensions of psychological vs. physical aggression, and aggression against mother vs. father."
## [267] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA of a revised model confirmed better fit, χ2(180, N = 235) = 312.49, p = .00 (GFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.052; standardized RMR = 0.049)."
## [268] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA was separately conducted for each subscale. Results showed that eigenvalues of each of the first unrotated factors were large (strict-father: 6.15, representing 41% of the variance; nurturant-parent: 5.59, representing 39.9% of the variance), suggesting that each subscale represents a unified concept. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA with Varimax rotation was conducted on all 29 items. Results confirmed the conceptual independence of the subscales as distinct aspects of 2 independent belief systems. Moreover, CFA results indicated good model fit: chi-square (19, N = 1,586) = 86.612, RMSEA = .047, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.038, .058], P closefit = .646, CFI = .988, TLI = .982."
## [269] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using principal axis factoring, extracted one factor based on parallel analysis, to understand the shared variance among the 31 items. The scree plot confirmed that the single factor accounted for 61.11% of the variance. Item reduction examined items for redundancy, and identified those that captured the essence of the domain, conveying both conciseness and ease of readability. The resulting 10-item CS-LEAD instrument underwent additional EFA, showing the single factor accounting for 58.00% of the variance. Item loadings ranged from .65 to .86. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA with maximum likelihood estimation showed results suggesting good fit for the 10-item CS-LEAD: chi-square (35, N = 154) = 69.92, p< .001, root mean square error of approximation = .08; 90% confidence interval [.05, .11], CFI = .95, TLI = .93, SRMR = .04. Local fit indices showed all 10 items loading strongly on the leadership factor. Item loadings ranged from .46 to .82."
## [270] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded a 2-factor solution that explained 59.97% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA results corroborated the pertinence of a two-factor solution [chi-square (42, N = 400) = 86.91, p <0.05; chi-square/ gl = 2.06; NFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.98; GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.94; RMSEA (CI) = 0.05 (0.03-0.06)]."
## [271] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA revealed a 12-item 3-factor solution: chi-square (74, n = 236) = 163.64, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.92, GFI = 0.92, and AGFI = 0.87. Structural equation model: The indices showed that this model was fit for TSWLS: chi-square (48, n = 236) = 82.06, RMSEA = 0.055, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.84, GFI = 0.95, and AGFI = 0.91."
## [272] "Confirmatory Factor Analyses: A six-factor model was a significantly better fit to the data than the three-factor model: For mothers, Chi-squared (12, N = 323) = 180.79, p < .001 for the derivation subsample and Chi-squared (12, N = 322) = 212.90, p < .001 for a replication subsample; and for fathers, Chi-squared (12, N = 283) = 288.30, p < .001, for the derivation subsample, and Chi-squared (12, N = 284) = 180.37, p < .001, for a replication subsample. The other indexes suggested that the six-factor model was a satisfactory fit to the data, with GFIs and AGFIs that exceeded or approached the recommended levels of .85 and .90, respectively; CMIN/DFs that were less than 3; RMSEA values at or only slightly above .05; and Hoelter values that approached 200. This pattern of results was found for both mothers and fathers."
## [273] "CFA/SEM: A six-factor model was a significantly better fit to the data: For the derivation subsample, Chi-squared (12, N = 1247) = 3,634.60, p < .001; the replication-1 subsample, Chi-squared (12, N = 1274) = 2,673.86, p < .001; and the replication-2 subsample, Chi-squared (12, N = 1223) = 2960.90, p < .001."
## [274] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Child sample: CFA results showed that the single factor model provided a good fit to the data: The chi-square value did not reach significance, chi-square(5, N = 527) = 9.83, p = .08; the TLI and CFI values were .99; and the RMSEA and SMSR were .043 and .015, respectively. All factor loadings were significant (ps < .001) and ranged from .64 to .82. To test the one-factor structure of the PINTS, the omega hierarchical was calculated. Results from the omega function of the psych package (Revelle, 2018) in R (R Core Team, 2018) indicated further support for the unidimensional model, with a general RNT factor explaining 91% of the common variance among the 5 items. Adult sample: As with the child sample, a one-factor CFA indicated by the 5 PINTS items was tested. The TLI value of .97, CFI value of .99, and SMSR value of .019 indicated that model fit was adequate."
## [275] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: PCA of the 11 creative potential and practised creativity items along with six POS items suggested a clear factor structure for each construct with high factor loadings and virtually no significant cross-loadings for any of the items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA verified the three-factor model, which showed better fit than alternative one- and two-factor models (chi-square [116, N = 335] = 280.66, GFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.95)."
## [276] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The final three factor structure accounted for 55.2% of the variance in the data. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA fit statistics for the 27-item MEWS suggested that the three-factor model suggested acceptable fit to the data: χ2 (321, N = 303), = 1226.30 p < .001, CFI = 0.76, SRMR = .087, RMSEA = .097, 90% [.091, .102]."
## [277] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The final iteration produced a four-factor solution accounting for 51.3% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA of the 24-item ECOS produced acceptable model fit, χ2 (246, N = 145) = 451.70, p < .001, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = .089, RMSEA = .079 (90% CI: .068−.090). Measurement Invariance: The two-groups measurement model with freely estimated model parameters also demonstrated acceptable fit, χ2 (492, N = 267) = 900.88, p < .01, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = .090, RMSEA = .081 (90% CI: .073−.089)."
## [278] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA, using a subsample (n = 258), tested whether the beauty myth beliefs represent separate components. Results yielded 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 70.39% of the variance; a scree test also suggested 4 factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, informed by the EFA results, used a second subsample (n = 269) to determine factor structure. Results showed good model fit to the data, supporting the 4-factor structure: chi-square (48, n = 269) = 103.33, p < .001, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .948, CFI = .962, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .058, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .056. All standardized factor loadings were above .56. (with the majority in the .70s)."
## [279] "Factor analysis: A two-factor model representing PCBD Criterion B and Criterion C provided a good fit to the data, chi-square(366, N = 367) = 789.670, CFI = .911, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .904, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .055, 90% CI [.050, .060], standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .047."
## [280] "Exploratory factor analysis: PCA revealed a two-factor solution after rotation, the first factor accounted for 21.5% of the variance, while the second factor accounted for 18.3% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: Fit indices indicated a good fit for the two-factor solution (chi-square (115, N = 1,703) = 822.45, p < .0001, GFI = .94, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06)."
## [281] "Exploratory factor analysis: PAF revea;ed a 3-factor solution that accounted for 70.59% of the total variance and 57.65% of the extracted rotated variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA revealed all three factors loading on a second-order factor fit the data: chi-square (32, N = 246) = 117.64, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .11, AIC = 183.64."
## [282] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA yielded a 2-factor solution with eigenvalues of 5.62 and 1.39 representing 40.11% and 9.95% of the variance, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA confirmed the model structure: N = 249; chis-square = 122.83; df = 76; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; NFI = .91; RMSEA = .05."
## [283] "Principal components analysis: PCA yielded a 2-factor solution accounting for 50.85% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: The GFI (.917), IFI (.947), TLI (.938), CFI (.946), and RMSEA (.063, 90% CI: .056-.071) all suggested an adequate fit of the model to the data. The two factors were correlated at a value of .474 (p < .001) indicating a moderate degree of relationship. Structural equation modeling: The model yielded an adequate fit to the data. Although the chi square value was statistically significant (16, N = 306) = 56.372, p < .001, the GFI, IFI, and CFI were .958, .956, and .955, respectively, and the RMSEA was .091."
## [284] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using principal axis factoring and promax rotation methods, suggested a 2-factor solution as the most preferred. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on the eight first-order correlated factors model, demonstrating acceptable-to-mediocre fit [chi-squared (224, N = 317) = 730.52, p < .001; RMSEA = .085 (CI .90 = .078–.091); SRMR = .054; CFI = .91]. Further assessment using bootstrapping examined both the 95% and 99% CIs, revealing three and six intervals that included unity, respectively. This indicated that several dimensions overlapped significantly with each other. A combined EFA/CFA approach further refined items, removing those that were ambiguous, resulting in a finalized set of 18 items."
## [285] "Exploratory factor analysis: In a final EFA of the 20 items using a polychoric correlation matrix as input, three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1 and explained 73.40% of the variance in the items. Factor 1, Fit Idealization, had an eigenvalue of 10.78 and accounted for 53.90% of the variance in the items. Factor 2, Fit Overvaluation, had an eigenvalue of 2.56 and accounted for 12.80% of the variance in the items. Factor 3, Fit Behavioral Drive, had an eigenvalue of 1.33 and accounted for 6.70% of the variance in the items. Confirmatory factor analysis: The CFA, performed with all items allowed to load only onto their respective factors and factors allowed to covary as per the EFA results and a priori theory, produced a significant chi-square (167, N = 354) = 377.51 p < .001, but the ratio of chi-square to df was 2.26, indicating a good fit of the model to the data (Bollen, 1989)."
## [286] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The 7-factor solution explained 73.10% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The originally proposed model presented the best fit: χ² (370, N = 1934) = 2800, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94; NFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.067; SRMR = 0.08."
## [287] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA revealed several cross loadings in the MDBS. Through repeated EFA procedures and item analyses, a final 7‐factor structure was reached, based on 18 of the 55 original items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used the EQS program (Bentler, 1999). While the seven factors were allowed to be correlated, errors were not correlated. Moreover, ML and Robust methods were used simultaneously. The chi‐square test (Hu & Bentler, 1999) revealed a good fit to the data, as it was not significant; Satorra–Bentler scaled: chi-squared(114, N = 372) = 118.56, P = .366. Other goodness‐of‐fit indices confirmed the chi‐square test: chi-squared/df = 1.04, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .01, .90 CI (.00, .03). Further CFA testing was conducted to see if the addition a single higher‐order factor on which all seven correlated factors loaded would improve the 7‐factor solution. No single higher‐order factor was found, indicating that the 7‐factor solution was the superior model."
## [288] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After calculation of the CFA in the total sample (model 1) and none was found in the individual samples satisfactory model, not even after implementation of an additional method factor consisting of the inverted items. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: ESEM for the total sample had a very good model fit, chi-square (429, N = 421) = 718.784, p (chi-square) <.01, RMSEA = .040, p (RMSEA <.05) = 1.0, SRMR = .025, CFI = .960 (model 3)."
## [289] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The five factors explained 64.8% of the variance (a highly acceptable level of variance). All items loaded ‘cleanly’ onto the expected factor, with no items cross loading. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Using confirmatory factor analysis, minimization was successful and the data were considered an acceptable fit to the model ([N = 2031] chi-square = 195.42 p < .001; CMIN/df = 2.96, RMSEA = 0.03 [90% CI 0.03–0.04], CFI = 0.96)."
## [290] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The initial measurement model involved the original two-factor structure with four items as indicators of standards and four items measuring discrepancy. Fit results for the two-factor structure in the U.S. sample were: chi-square(19, N = 255) = 37.74, p = .006, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .062, 90% CI [.03, .09], SRMR = .05. Fit indices for the Korean sample and the two-factor SAPS model were: chi-square(19, N = 306) = 70.52, p < .0001, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .09, 90% CI [.07, .12], SRMR = .09. Measurement Invariance: After metric invariance, however, four of the eight intercepts (two for each factor) were freely estimated to support partial scalar invariance. Additional IRT DIF analyses revealed perceived item difficulty in responding, or degree of ease in agreeing, to specific items differed between participants in the United States and Korea."
## [291] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Results from the EFA indicated a major drop in the scree plot between the first (eigenvalue of 9.36) and second factor (eigenvalue of .57), thereby suggesting a one-factor solution accounting for 77.96% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The four-factor model provided the best fit to the data: chi-squared (48, N = 234) = 132.60, p < .01; chi-squared/df = 2.76; CFI = .98; NFI = .97; PNFI = .70; RMSEA = .087; PCLOSE = .000."
## [292] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: EFA revealed a 5-factor solution that accounted for 54.3% of the variance. This model did not present a good fit to the data during CFA. A final CFA confirmed a modified 22-item 5-factor structure (chi-square (196, N = 315) = 348.535, p <0.001, chi-square/gl = 1.78 , RMSEA = 0.050, TLI = 0.931, CFI = 0.942 and AIC = 23958.140)."
## [293] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The single factor explained 45% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results indicated that the model presented a good adjustment to the data: chi-squared/gl(N = 224) = 1.93, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.065, 90% IC [0.033, 0.095], WRMR = 0.64."
## [294] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA revealed a 3-factor solution explaining 57.31% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA results indicated the three-factor model demonstrated excellent model fit after Bollen-Stine boostrap correction (N= 2000) (B-S chi-square (74) = 117.57; CFI, GFI, NFI, and TLI > .95; RMSEA = .05). Measurement invariance: Results showed the three-factor C-BREQ-2 is invariant across gender at both configural, full metric, and full scalar levels. Structural equation modeling: SEMs demonstrated great model fit (B-S chi-square (85) = 131.9 for boys; B-S chi-square (85) = 136.51 for girls; B-S chi-square (85) = 137.66 for all participants; for all three SEMS, CFI, GFI, NFI, and TLI > .95; RMSEA = .05). Introjected regulation is the only construct that positively related to weekly MVPA for both boys, girls, and total sample."
## [295] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Results yielded a one-dimensional model: χ2 (2, N = 1,594) = 26.436, p <.001, RMSEA = .088, CFI = .985, TLI = .923, SRMR = .017 and all items significant (p <.001) and substantial (≥ .42) on the latent factor loaded. In 2 subsequent samples (χ2 (2, N = 129) = 3,360, p = .18, RMSEA = .073, CFI = .991, TLI = .957 and SRMR = .021; χ2 (2, N = 95) = 3,219, p = .20, RMSEA = .080, CFI = .984, TLI = .921 and SRMR = .029) the fit again proved to be very good. Measurement invariance: Measurement invariance was supported for different groups of apprentices, for gender, and over time."
## [296] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA with direct oblimin rotation yielded four factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA indicated acceptable-to-good fit of the factors to the data chi-square (df = 164, N = 296) = 306.88, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.054 (90% CI 0.045, 0.064); CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.95."
## [297] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Country-by-country EFAs revealed that only 15 items were good candidates for an instrument recovering the Big Five structure in all countries. Exploratory Principal Component Analysis: Exploratory PCA suggested 5 factors with the percentage of variance explained as 56.1 for Japan (country with highest loadings), 48.0 for Nigeria (country with lowest loadings), and 54.2 for the US (a country often used for comparisons). These loadings were higher than previous findings with other short Big-Five instruments (Schmitt et al., 2007; Soto & John, 2017a, b). Measurement Invariance: ESEM suggested the following for configural invariance: χ2(760, N = 27,675) = 1799.37, p < .001. Other fit indexes showed: CFI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.031 (90% CI: 0.029, 0.032), and SRMR = 0.016. Yet, the metric invariance solution showed a considerable loss of fit, Δχ2(900) = 3321.45, p < .001, ΔCFI = 0.055, ΔRMSEA = 0.007, ΔSRMR = 0.022. Also, scalar invariance showed a poor fit."
## [298] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA was conducted on a subsample (n = 966), using parallel analysis. Results indicated that 11 factors should be retained. Scree plot analysis indicated that 5-, 8-, and 18-factor solutions may also have been appropriate. Further examination of these proposed solutions ultimately found the 11-factor solution to be the most interpretable. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, conducted on a subsample (n = 592), tested fit using an 11-factor oblique model, an 11-factor orthogonal model, and a one-factor model with all 44 items loading onto one factor. Results found the 11-factor oblique model provided the best fit to the data."
## [299] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final 5-factor measurement model indicated a reasonable fit (χ2[316, N = 181] = 673.83, p < .001; comparative fit index = .865; Tucker‐ Lewis index = .860; incremental fit index = .866; root mean square error of approximation = .079)."
## [300] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The factor solution yielded one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one, explaining 63.7% of the variance. Loadings ranged between .68 and .82. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The single factor model showed an acceptable fit to the data: (chi-squared (14, N = 220) = 40.86, p<.001; (chi-squared/df = 2.92; RMSEA = .09, RMR = .04, CFI = .96 and TLI = .95)."
## [301] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The 2-factor model of the SPANE, with 2 correlated factors of the SPANE-P and SPANE-N subscales, demonstrated good fit to data in the both the young adult sample (n = 513: SB chi-square (53) = 115.03, RMSEA = .048, 90% CI = .036–.060, CFI = .98) and the adolescent sample (n = 295: SB chi-square (53) = 54.35, RMSEA = .009, 90% CI =.000–.038, CFI = 1.00)."
## [302] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Two factors were extracted for 53.5% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For the Dutch sample, CFA results indicated a better fit for the 2-factor model (chi-square (N = 200, df = 51) = 96.1, GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.87 RMSEA = 0.07). For the Turkish sample, CFA supported the two-factor structure (chi-square (N = 243, df = 50) = 121.56, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, AIC = 177.56). Structural Equation Modeling: SEM analyses using data from participants from the Netherlands and Turkey, showed that low job demands and resources were associated with boredom and that boredom was associated with procrastination at work and counterproductive work behaviour."
## [303] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: With the deletion of two cross-loading items, an interpretable 5-factor model, explaining 63.49% of the total variance, was extracted. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The 5-factor model (CFI = .87, RMSEA = .10, SRMS = .08; chi-squared (160) = 546.38, p < .001) provided a better fit than the hypothesized 4-factor model (chi-squared diff (14, N = 223) = 136.59, p < .001)."
## [304] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA identified a one-factor solution explaining 78.6% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFA cross-validation of the one-factor structure in the second random sample (n = 377) resulted in an excellent model fit (chi-square = 3.37, df = 5, p = .589, scaling factor = 1.14; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00), with factor loadings ranging between .71 and .94 providing further support for the unidimensionality of the ReSta scale. Measurement Invariance: The ReSta-scale showed strict measurement invariance in comparisons across gender, age, education, and relationship status allowing comparisons of the sumscores across these groups."
## [305] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using a geomin factor rotation and maximum likelihood parameter estimator, analyzed the first half (n = 149) of the sample. After two EFAs, results found that a finalized set of 4 items loaded significantly onto a single factor. Excellent model fit was demonstrated: [chi-squared(2) = 3.449, p > 0.05; CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.070, SRMR = 0.020]. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA analyzed the second half (n = 163) of the sample and found that the AWCs scale showed excellent fit to the data [chi-squared(2) = 1.988, p > 0.05; CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.021]. Moreover, standardized factor loadings were above 0.3."
## [306] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA identified three core domains for 59% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA found that the three core domain had an acceptable fit, with chi-square (206, n = 263) = 615.35, p <0.5, chi-square/df = 2.99, CFI = .88 and RMSEA = .087."
## [307] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA supported a 1-factor solution: chi-square = 116; df = 91; p-value = 0.00; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.06. Differential item functioning: Upon imposing constraints for factor loadings and intercepts together, as well as when adding additional constraints, differential item functioning was not observed except for item 1, which focuses on greetings, for age groups (p = 0.02 and 0.03 for selected and all constraints respectively, N = 180)."
## [308] "Rasch/Factor analysis: Collapsing response categories, removing misfitting items and combining residually correlating items produced a good fit to the Rasch model (n = 240, total Chi-squared = 56.6, df = 48, p = 0.18). Factor analysis produced a 16-item measure with two factors."
## [309] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using parallel analysis, found 2 factors having eigenvalues of 5.49 an 3.21, respectively. These explained more variance than chance alone, accounting for 56.8% of the variance combined. One factor focused on beliefs that poverty was due to systems influences (e.g., education system). The second factor on beliefs that poverty was due to influences at the individual level (e.g., experiencing poverty as the result of individual choices). Factor loadings for each factor were above .30. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted with the phase 2 sample ( n = 280), with results showing all factor loadings to be above .35, with the factors correlating at −.28 and acceptable model fit demonstrated. Further analysis reduced the number of items to a finalized 17 items."
## [310] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The 3-factor solution accounted for 70.4% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results of the CFA revealed a good fit, chi-square(51, N = 241) = 90.37, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .057 (90% confidence interval [CI] [.037, .076]); Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .981; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .976; Incremental Fit Index [IFI] = .981."
## [311] "Confirmatory factor analysis/Structural regression modeling: Based on theoretical considerations, a one-factor solution of the nine dichotomous items was tested with CFA. The model provided a good fit to the data (χ2 = 194.4 df = 27 p b .0001; CFI = 0.971; TLI = 0.962; RMSEA = 0.036 [0.031–0.040] Cfit N 0.90 pclose = 1.000; N = 4887). The pattern of covariates of IGDT-10 was tested with a structural regression model. The two instruments measuring problematic online gaming (i.e., IGDT-10 and Problematic Online Gaming Questionnaire (POGQ; Demetrovics et al., 2012)) were strongly correlated (r = .77, p < .001). Item response theory: The results of IRT analysis demonstrated the criteria “continuation”, “preoccupation”, “negative consequences”, and “escape” were endorsed more frequently in less severe IGD stages and “tolerance”, “loss of control”, “giving up other activities”, and “deception” were only reported in more severe cases."
## [312] "Factor Analysis: Based on the initial sample (n = 120), factor analysis revealed a 3-factor solution that explained 68.9% of the variance in GFS-SR scores."
## [313] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The proposed 3-factor model obtained was satisfactory, with excellent fit indices: S-Bchi-square (526, N = 5036) = 1180, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.016 (95% CI: 0.015–0.017); CFI = 0.999; NNFI = 0.999. SRMR = 0.059. Measurement invariance: The measurement model was invariant for the two age groups (10–14 years and 15–23 years). Cybervictimization and cyberaggression correlated with offline victimization and aggression (r = 0.49; p < 0.001; r = 0.57; p < 0.001, respectively)."
## [314] "Structural equation modeling: Preliminary results revealed Following listwise deletion of missing data, the measurement model provided good fit to the data, χ2(129, N =880)=494.54, p < .05; CFI=0.95; NNFI=0.94; SRMR=0.06, and all standardized factor loadings were significant and ranged from 0.65 to 0.90 (M=0.76). A CFA model was specified in which all manifest indicators loaded onto a single factor and compared to the baseline measurement model. Results from the single-factor model [χ2 (135)=2294.84, p < .05, CFI=0.72, NNFI=0.70, SRMR=0.15] and subsequent sequential chi-square difference test suggested the single-factor model was a significantly worse fit relative to the original model [Δ χ2 (6)=1800.28, p < .05]."
## [315] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final iteration, and current 4-factor solution, presented a significant Chi Squared test (chi-square[253, N = 1510] = 768 p < .001), significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (chi-square[253, N = 1510] = 8075, p < .001), an overall KMO of 0.78 (ref: >0.7), RMSEA index of 0.059 (C.I. 90%: 0.055–0.063, ref: <.05), and Tucker Lewis Index of 0.831 (ref: >0.9)."
## [316] "Factor Analysis: A representative sample of 5-year-old Chinese preschoolers (N = 426) was used to determine factor structure, using a procedure similar to the one used by LeFevre et al. (2009). A 4-factor structure was revealed after removing 2 numeracy activities (i.e., playing with number fridge magnets and measuring ingredients when cooking) that most parents never engaged in and one activity (i.e., ordering things by size, length, weight, or number). The resulting 21-item measure showed strong item loadings on all 4 factors. Measurement Model: The 4-factor measurement model showed a good fit: chi-square (df = 181) = 538.13 (p = .001), CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR =.05."
## [317] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Analysis revealed sufficient fit for the suggested model of two correlating factors of motor skills with each four sub-scales = chi-square/df = 1.76, N = 197, p < .001, TLI = .91, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06."
## [318] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the items. Measurement Model: As derived from the CFA, results for the measurement model showed a satisfactory level of fit to the data: chi-square (df = 188, N = 199) = 377.836; normed chi-square = 2.01; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.854; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.927; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.953; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.962; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.039."
## [319] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A correlated three‐factor model achieved an adequate level of overall model fit: chi-square (132, N = 439) = 356.00, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.03; and RMSEA = 0.06."
## [320] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA testing all 3 samples (n = 1,432) showed eigenvalues, scree plots and parallel analyses converging in a 3-factor solution that indicated a 2-cluster structure (individualizing-binding). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA tested models created with the Relevance and Judgment Scales. Models compared included Single-factor, 2-factor, 3-factor, and 5-factor. A 6-factor model (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, tradition, and sanctity) in which the authority foundation is divided into 2 (i.e., authority and tradition), and hierarchical models (care-fairness as individualizing foundations, loyalty-authority-sanctity as binding foundations) were also tested. Results indicated the 5-factor model having the best fit, although relatively low fit indices and high error coefficients were seen. Similarly, the 5- and 6-factor models showed relatively fair fit with data from the full MFQ; but, none of the models reached a desirable and acceptable fit with the data."
## [321] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA compared the model fit of the proposed 3-factor model to two alternative (i.e., 1-factor and 2-factor) models. The proposed model showed adequate fit with the data: chi-square (242, n = 197) = 413.580, p < .001, chi-square /df = 1.709, CFI = .92, IFI = .93, RMSEA = .06. Results also showed standardized factor loadings all above .50, and AVEs and CRs all above the required thresholds, collectively providing support for convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010)."
## [322] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA was used to evaluate the underlying structure of the PCF measure. Results yielded a 3-factor model with 11 items had a good fit with the data, χ2(41, n = 197) = 91.207, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.225, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .079. A CFA was also conducted to determine whether job and career satisfaction were separate constructs using cut-off criteria as with the PCF scale. Results yielded a two-factor model consisting of 7 items had a very good fit to the data, χ2(12, n = 197) = 14.720, p > .05, χ2/df = 1.227, CFI = .996, IFI = .996, RMSEA = .034. Structural equation modeling: Results showed that identification with the MNC partially mediated the relationship between PCF and job satisfaction, and PCF and career satisfaction."
## [323] "Explanatory Factor Analysis: EFA extracted four factors for 66.3% of the total variance, and factor loading was .493–816. Although four factor model was confirmed some facets loaded under the different factors from original model. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model fit was acceptable to good: chi-square = 374.2 (df = 84, N = 400), CFI = .90, AGFI = 84, NFI .87, and RMSEA = .09."
## [324] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used maximum likelihood estimation and oblique rotation on the initial 29 items, finding 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 63.99% of the variance. Nine items not having a strong correlation with any factor (i.e., greater than .45) were removed. None of the 20 remaining items loaded onto more than one factor (i.e., loadings not different by at least .10). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Two CFAs, using maximum likelihood estimation, assessed the 20 items in 2 samples of adult gay and bisexual men in the U.S. (n = 96) and Sweden (n = 1,413). Results confirmed the structural stability of the instrument in both samples. Also, identical fit was found for both a first-order model with 4 latent subscale factors and a second-order model with an overarching second-order latent gay community stress factor, suggesting the appropriateness of examining either the subscales or the overall scale in subsequent analyses."
## [325] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An EFA revealed one Eigenvalue>1 (2.78), with the next value being 0.88, suggesting a one-factor structure of the scale within the total sample. The respective Eigenvalues for the English subsample were 2.7 and 0.89 and for the French subsample 2.4 and 0.90. The one-factor solution for the overall sample showed a less than ideal fit (χ2(N=232, df=5)=26.74, p < .001, RMSEA=0.14, 90% CI [0.09, 0.19], CFI=0.98, TLI=0.97. EFAs conducted with the English (χ2(N=118, df=5)=22.53, p < .001, RMSEA=0.17, 90% CI [0.10, 0.25], CFI=0.97, TLI=0.95) and French (χ2(N=113, df=5)=8.48, p=.13, RMSEA=0.08, 90% CI [0.00, 0.17], CFI=0.99, TLI=0.98) subsamples revealed a comparable model fit."
## [326] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal components EFA extracted one factor explaining 85% of the variance. Following the removal of one item, the construct explained 83% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final CFA model resulted in a Satorra-Bentler chi-square(2, N = 301) = 5.10, p = .08, with a CFI = 0.99 and RMSEA = 0.07."
## [327] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: It was shown that the factor structure cannot be represented by a one-factor model as in the original, but by a second-order construct. The goodness of the model was with chi-square (76, N = 122) = 103.75, p <.001 not appropriate. The Fit indicators, however, showed an appropriate fit of the model, with CFI = .961, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .055, 90% CI for RMSEA [.023, .079]. Beyond that all factor loads appropriate to very good (.44–.82). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit indicators, however, showed a moderate (CFI = .83, TLI = .83) to appropriate fit of the model (RMSEA = .05, 90% AI for RMSEA [.047, .052]). Measurement Invariance: Results supported measurement invariance of the MHL-W-G across genders."
## [328] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The one-factor structure was confirmed based on the following fit indices: χ2 (35, N = 354) = 93.75, p < .001; GFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.91; SRMR = 0.050; RMSEA = 0.069. Measurement Invariance: The results of measurement analysis depending on the sample of study I demonstrated that configural and metric invariances were established across Facebook and other social media users."
## [329] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final model resulted in an excellent fit to the data, chi-square (47, N = 217) = 65.746, p = .0367, CFI = .986, SRMR = .040."
## [330] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using maximum likelihood extraction with an oblique rotation to assess sample 3A (n = 334) indicated a 4-factor solution. Based on the factor loadings and cross-loadings, 16 of the 39 initial items were retained. Also, the 4 factors mirrored the 4-dimensional structure the authors initially proposed. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA compared the the hypothesized 4-factor model to 3 alternative models. Results showed that across all 5 samples, the standardized factor loadings for the 4-factor model were statistically significant (all p values < .01), and ranged between .58 and .94. Cumulatively, these results support the proposed 4-factor structure."
## [331] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA, using orthogonal varimax rotation, examined the sample (n = 319), confirming the construct multidimensionality of the instrument. A 3-factor solution was revealed that accounted for 28.29% of total variance (i.e., 17.05%, 6.62%, and 4.61% for successive factors). Items failing to achieve a minimum factor loading of ≥ 0.35 were removed."
## [332] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The two-factor structure provided a good fit for the data: χ2(19, N = 749) = 68.52, p < .0001, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.059 [0.044, 0.074]. Measurement Invariance: The results indicated that the SAPS demonstrated impressive measurement invariance between women and men."
## [333] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted for the measurement model with 2 observed indicators (i.e., content and content and user-oriented social media exposures) and 4 latent variables (i.e., personal- and societal-level risk perceptions, intention to take preventive actions, and intention to comply with government-recommended actions). A separate CFA was conducted for the single-item measure (social media exposure) using 2 different risk issues (i.e., micro dust and earthquake) in a nationwide sample (N = 1152). Reasonable fit for the 2 separate CFA models was demonstrated. Measurement Model: The CFA results showed the model fitting the data well: chi-square (59) = 103.17, p < .001, RMSEA = .03 (90% CI = .02 to .04), CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .02."
## [334] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA resulted in the removal of several low-performing items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA resulted in the final 40-item model with 11 scales demonstrating satisfactory fit statistics, chi-square (680, N = 230) = 1102.5, p < .001, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .90, comparative fit index (CFI) = .91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .052. All items loaded on appropriate dimensions and were statistically significant with t values above 5.0."
## [335] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA extracted four factors for 57.27% of the overall variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The hypothesized four-factor model provided excellent fit to the data: chi-square (113, N = 429) = 215.10, p<.001; RMSEA = .046; CFI = .99; TLI = .99."
## [336] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A sample (n = 384) was used to conduct separate EFAs on each of the 3 facets, to determine factor structure. Facet 1 was comprised of 4 factors (dimensions) that explained 67.62% of the total variance; Facet 2 had 2 factors that explained 70% of the total variance; Facet 3 had 5 factors that explained 78.78% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A sample (n = 201) was used to conduct separate CFAs. Facet 1 showed the following fit values: GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.037; RMR = 0.041. Facet 2 showed these fit values: GFI = >0.90; AGFI = >0.90; CFI = >0.90; RMSEA = 0.056; RMR = 0.039. Facet 3 showed these fit values: GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.93; CFI = 1; RMSEA = 0.026; RMR = 0.046."
## [337] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA yielded a 21-item three-factor solution accounting for 46.87% of the variance in the Korean item and a 28-item four-factor solution that accounted for 48.53% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A bi-factor model with 18 items proved to be the most reasonable fit to the data (chi-squared [df = 117, N = 350] = 193.07, p < .001; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .04 [95% CI: .03, .05]; SRMR = .05) in the South Korean sample, and a bi-factor model with 23 items demonstrated acceptable model fit (chi-square [df = 207, N = 350] = 422.80, p < .001; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .06 [95% CI: .05, .06]; SRMR = .06) in the US sample."
## [338] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An initial EFA of 24 items resulted in the removal three items due to inconsistent loadings and cross loadings. EFA proposed seven factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Monte Carlo power simulation was conducted of a seven-factor CFA with standardized loadings at .90 and inter-factor correlations at .50, modeling a sample size at n = 964 (i.e., the smallest country-specific sample size in our sample). This simulation indicated very high power to estimate the structural components of the model (i.e., loadings, correlations, residual variances), with power consistently > .90. A seven-factor solution had configural, metric, and reasonable scalar invariance in multi-group confirmatory factor analysis."
## [339] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A model with five factors was obtained (69 percent of the total variance). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A second order CFA showed a very good fit (chi-squared (289, n=1,757)=2,748.149, p<0.001; RMSEA=0.070, 95%CI (0.067, 0.072); SRMR=0.038; CFI=0.947; AIC=93,143.086), in which the five factors that were connected with the item indicators are explained by a single second order factor."
## [340] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The two-factor model, χ2(19, N = 607) = 50.26, p < .001, showed a better fit, as indicated by the significant difference in the chi-square statistic, Δχ2(1) = 285.44, p < .001. Moreover, the goodness-of-fit indices also revealed an excellent fit for the two-factor model (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03)."
## [341] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA was conducted to evaluate the factorial validity of the three scales (flow, satisfaction-with-event and life satisfaction). The measurement model set the three correlated trait factors to reflect the pattern of correlations between validity and trait factors (Marsh, 1989). The scales were found to be acceptable (chi-square(41, n = 434) = 159.65, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.08, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.03), and the factor loadings ranged from 0.72 to 0.94. Structural Equation Modeling: SEM was used to test a partially mediated model and a fully mediated model. Results revealed that both models performed equally well."
## [342] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using principal axis factoring with Promax oblique rotation was conducted on the first half of the sample (n = 209). Initially, five factors were identified having eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Parallel analysis suggested that four factors were to be retained. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on the second half of the sample (n = 210), with results showing the four-factor model to have excellent fit overall: chi-square (210) = 34.29; p = .167; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.036 (95%CI [0.0, 0.07]); SRMR = 0.041."
## [343] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Using CFA, the following fit statistics of the three items to the PfC construct were found: chi-square(1, N = 112) = .43, p = .51; comparative fit index (CFI) = .99; and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .99. Two error statistics were found: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .01, and root mean square residual (RMR) = .02."
## [344] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A review of both the factor loadings and scree plot revealed that a one-factor solution was the best representation of the data. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: All indices indicated good fit for the 1-factor (i.e. unidimensional) model: chi-square (df = 405, N = 288) = 790.63, p = 0.00; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [.05, .06]; CFI = .91; TLI = .90."
## [345] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results indicated that the measurement model fit the data well, and thus these results provided evidence for the structural validity. Model fit indices are: chi-square (1, N = 441) = 3.276, p = .070, CFI = .997, RMSEA = .079 with 90% CI [.000, .182], SRMR = .009."
## [346] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model presents good fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .052, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .97, Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) = .056. Although the Chi- Square was significant, (35, n = 545) = 87.02, p < .001, this test assumes multivariate normality and, because of its sensitivity to sample size, leads to a systematic rejection of models with large samples (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008)."
## [347] "Confirmatory factor analysis: A seven-factor first-order model was specified by assigning item parcels to their corresponding factors and all 7 factors were allowed to correlate freely. Model fit was acceptable, chi-squared (df 149, N=651) =466.05, p<0.001, GFI=0.93, AGFI=0.90, CFI=0.96, NFI=0.94, RMSEA=0.057, 90 % CI [0.051, 0.063]. Two second-order factors were also supported: chi-square = 671.57, df = 162, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.91, RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.070 [0.064, 0.075], AIC = 767.57. Measurement invariance: Both AIC and BCC values, and a negligible change of GFIs upon imposing cross-group constraints (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), indicated that the best trade-off of model fit and parsimony is obtained by constraining all parametars to be equal across groups. These data suggest the PNI is factorially invariant across gender in this sample."
## [348] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An EFA using principal factors extraction with Promax rotation extracted three factors for 63.84% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: Results yielded a 3-factor solution: chi-square(55, N = 165) = 78.57, p < .01. CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.05."
## [349] "Factor Structure: Estimation of the GEI MIMIC model provided an excellent fit to the data, chi-square(5, N = 401) = 27.95, p < .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .01. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .89 to .98; thus, all 4 items were retained for the substantive analyses."
## [350] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: For Pre-Event, the EFA extracted three factors for 72.707% of the variance. For Event, the EFA extracted three factors for 75.989% of the variance. For Post-Event, the EFA extracted three factors for 81.689% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The respecified model indicated acceptable model fit for Pre-Event citizen disaster communication: chi-square(198, N = 299) = 558.761, p < .001; CFI = .949; RMSEA: .078, 90% CI: [.071, .086]; TLI: .941. The respecified model indicated good model fit for Event citizen disaster communication: chi-square (48, N = 144) = 86.034, p < .001; CFI = .969; RMSEA: .074, 90% CI: [.048, .099]; TLI: .958. The respecified model indicated good model fit for Post-Event citizen disaster communication: chi-square(71, N = 138) = 129.458, p < .001; CFI = .965; RMSEA: .078, 90% CI: [.056, .098]; TLI: .955."
## [351] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used the Australian sample (n = 192), examining all variables via the unrotated factor solution to check for common method bias. The results revealed the presence of 10 distinct factors with eigenvalues >1 among the measures. The authors noted that while the results do not preclude the possibility of common method variance, they do suggest that such an explanation is unlikely. Measurement Model: Partial least squares in structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) examined the two samples, with results showing that the fit indices for both to be well within those recommended by Kock (2013) {i.e., p-values < 0.05 for APC and ARS; AVIF ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3)}, thereby indicating a good fit of the models to the data. Overall, the model explained 31% of the variance in the SCA construct in the Australian sample and 29% of the variance in the U.S. sample."
## [352] "Item response theory: Items in the final item bank (n = 28) were unidimensional (CFI = 0.95), did not show statistically meaningful levels of LD, and fit well the IRT model. A review of the item response curves generated by the IRT analyses indicated that the five response options functioned adequately for all items."
## [353] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using principal factor identified three factors for 65.17% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit statistics for the three-factor oblique model [CFI = .948, SRMR = .059, RMSEA = .068 (90% C.I. .049–.086)] were adequate. Multigroup CFA: Results indicated adequate fit for both groups [men: MLRchi-square(41, n = 100) = 46.92, p = .24, CFI = .986, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .055; women: MLRchi-square(41, n = 174) = 74.27, p = .001, CFI = .944, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .066]. Measurement Invariance: Multiple-group CFA results indicate that the RDS demonstrated the strictest level of measurement and structural invariance between men and women."
## [354] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The resulting four factor solution that was extracted obtained 62.0% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The goodness of the model showed adequate results (χ2(164, N = 314) = 319.9, p < .001; CFI = .942; TLI = .933; RMSEA = .055)."
## [355] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The CFA with maximum-likelihood estimation analysis yielded an acceptable model fit for the six-factor solution scale, with the following results: chi-square [120, n = 465] = 420.402, p < 0.0001; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.07; [90% CI, 0.066–0.081]."
## [356] "Exploratory factor analysis: Results provided evidence for a 4-factor solution, which together explained 59.7% of the total item variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA suggested that the model fits better in a different sample (chi-square /df (N = 321) = 2.147, P < 0.001, GFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.06, NFI = 0.86."
## [357] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA supported the hypothesized 3-factor solution, S-Bχ2 (167, N = 263) = 544.18, p < .001, RMSEA = .093, 90% CI [.084, .102], CFI = .95, NNFI = .95, AIC = 630.18. Factorial invariance: Configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance, error variance invariance, factor variance invariance, and factor covariance invariance across gender were established. As the male group was treated as the reference group and the factor means in this group were fixed to zero, the factor means in the female group represented tests of mean differences between the two groups. Compared with males, females reported significantly lower passion (t = −2.30, p = .021). The factor means of intimacy and commitment did not differ significantly across gender."
## [358] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Results supported a 6-factor model which displayed good fit, chi-square (259, N = 409) = 376.48, p < .001; CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .03, 90% CI [.03, .04], SRMR = .05. Structural equation modeling: The full structural model displayed good fit, chi-square(372, N = 409) = 572.37, p < .001; CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI [.03, .04], SRMR = .05."
## [359] "Confirmatory factor analysis: All indicator variables loaded significantly on the latent factors (p < .001) in the CFA of the original three-factor model and it resulted in an acceptable fit in this sample of clinical adults (chi-squared (87, N = 215) = 172.37, p < .001, CMIN/df = 1.98, NFI = .84, IFI = .91, TLI = .89, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .068 (90% CI [.053, .082])). Similar model fit indices with close to acceptable fit (chi-squared (87, N = 159) = 193.66, p < .001, CMIN/df = 2.23, NFI = .79, IFI = .87, TLI = .82, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .069 (90% CI [.056, .082])) were reached using family mean scores for members of 159 clinical families (construct validity)."
## [360] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA conducted with the study 1 sample (n = 434) revealed a 2-factor structure of interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA using the maximum likelihood method confirmed the 2-factor structure in the study 2 sample (n = 405), which demonstrated acceptable model fit. Measurement Invariance: Findings suggesed differences at the model level for adolescents, both with and without a history of deliberate self-harm."
## [361] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A two-factor solution accounted for 54% of the total variance before the oblique rotation. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit statistics for this model were SBSchi-square (26, N = 535) = 66.58, p < .001, CFI = .963, SRMR = .033, and RMSEA = .054 (90% confidence interval .038–.070). Based on general guidelines (Hu and Bentler 1999), the CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA all indicated a good data-to-model fit."
## [362] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model fit of the 2-factor model (N=301) was acceptable, according to the fit indices [chi-square (34)=127.57, p<.001; RMSEA =0.09; SRMR=0.04; CFI=0.95; AIC=6844.95]. Measurement Invariance: Measurement invariance across genders could be established in the present sample. However, full metric invariance was not established but partial metric invariance was established with the free estimation of item 3."
## [363] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA, using varimax rotation, identified 18 factors with eigenvalues > 1.0; But parallel analysis suggested the plausibility of a 6‐factor solution. Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA discovered that a 5‐factor solution yielded a better structure, with lower correlation between factors. However, due to factor 5 (Resources; RES) having a low number of loaded items (N = 2), it was excluded. As a result, the finalized NCQ included 4 factors and 16 items."
## [364] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using the MLM estimator to assess the full sample, showed good data fit: chi-square (2, N=87) = 3.562, p = .168, CFI = 0.978, SRMR = 0.043. Analysis also showed all 4 indicators loading positively and significantly onto the latent construct, with the first 3 indicators having a high loading (respectively, λ = 0.77, p < .001; λ = 0.99, p < .001; λ = 0.73, p < .001). The fourth indicator, however, had a lower loading (λ = 0.33, p=.006). Measurement Invariance: To conduct measurement invariance across gender, the metric invariance model to the baseline model, and the scalar invariance model to the metric invariance model (Kühne, 2013) were compared. Partial scalar invariance was established, and compared to the latent means of boys' and girls' intentional acceptance of social robots via the Wald-Test, with no significant differences found."
## [365] "Factor Analysis: To eliminate items that did not load together, and to determine whether there were five separate scales, factor analysis was conducted. Results revealed that a 5-factor solution was the most salient, and conceptually consistent with the five functions of identity. However, additional factor analyses were conducted on the study 2 sample (n = 133), to determine whether the 5-factor solution could be replicated with another sample. Results provided partial support for the hypothesis of structural validity suggested in Study 1. A maximum likelihood oblique rotation revealed that a 4-factor solution was the most appropriate. Items corresponding to the fourth function of identity (Harmony) loaded with other factors in this analysis (i.e., Function 1, Structure; Function 2, Goals). As a result 2 items were eliminated, creating a finalized 20-item scale."
## [366] "Factor Analysis: Using data from study 2 (n = 332), factor analysis assessed the interrelations between beneficence satisfaction; the psychological need satisfactions concerning autonomy, competence, and relatedness; and subjective well-being. Principal-Component Analysis: PCA conducted on the 12 need satisfaction variables and the 4 beneficence variables showed via scree plot that the 4-factor solution explained the largest amount of total variance, while retaining individual factors that all had significant explanatory power (0.14, 0.14, 0.16 and 0.16), even though its eigenvalue (0.94) was slightly below the conventional 1.0 standard. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA using maximum likelihood estimates showed adequate fit for the proposed 4-factor solution: chi-square = 296.902, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.917, CFI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.078, 95% CI [0.068, 0.089]."
## [367] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using the study 1 sample (n = 322), indicated a 2-factor solution, with the first factor (Public Support for Gender Equality) accounting for 25% of the total variance, and the second factor (Domestic Support for Gender Equality) accounting for 19%. Further analysis showed that 9 items loaded onto the first factor, while 7 items loaded onto the second factor. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using the study 2 sample (n = 358), evaluated the 16 retained items, using 1-, 2-, and 3-factor solutions. Results showed the 2-factor solution to be the simplest model that describes the data well (Myung & Pitt, 1997)."
## [368] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA conducted on the 19 retained items revealed a 5‐factor structure that explained 57.628% of the variance, and had a factor loading value above 0.40. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA found the chi-square test to be positive (chi-square = 312.92, N=550, df=142, P= 0.000). Moreover, CFA determined that the factorial model was an excellent fit to the data: RMSEA = 0.047, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.90, CFI =0.94, NNFI = 0.93, and SRMR = 0.0048."
## [369] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Results of the parallel analysis indicated a clear two-factor solution to these data. Extraction of two dimensions with principal axis factoring accounted for 61.0% of the covariation across items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results provided consistent evidence of close fit for the hypothesized two-factor model, chi-square(76, N = 398) = 184.7, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05, 0.07], SRMR = 0.035. Results failed to identify a one-factor model as a plausible solution to these data."
## [370] "Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: The hypothesized five-factor ESEM model provided a reasonable fit to the data, according to previously mentioned criteria: WLSMV-based w2(61, N = 452) = 56.959, p = .623; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [.000, .025], p = 1.00; WRMR = .300. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA model with the five hypothesized factors, in which each item loaded onto the respective factor (WLSMV-based w2(109, N = 452) = 271.770, p < .001; CFI = .978; TLI = .973; RMSEA = .059, 90% CI [.049, .066], p = .074; WRMR = 1.075) was supported over alternative models resulting in non-acceptable model fits. Measurement Invariance: All in all, metric, scalar, strict, and variance-covariance invariance were supported."
## [371] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA conducted with the sample (n = 114) confirmed that a one-factor model explained data adequately (chi-square [10, N = 116]) = 16.26, p = 0.003, NNFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04). Moreover, all factor loadings proved to be significant (ranging from 0.69 to 0.81). The results were used to establish construct validity."
## [372] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using maximum likelihood extraction was conducted with a subsample of participants (n = 758). Thirteen EFA iterations of the CSCS were conducted, resulting in the removal of 22 items (from the initial 42 items), for a finalized 20 items. Also, 2 factors statistically merged with another, reducing the number from 6 factors to 4, which explained 51.22% of the variance. As expected, the factors were moderately to strongly correlated (between 0.46 and 0.57), reflecting a moderate to strong relationship. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using maximum likelihood estimation, was conducted with a subsample of participants (n = 339). First and second order models, having either a 4- or 5-factor structure, were tested. Results confirmed that both models, with either 4 or 5 factors, were appropriate, with all models demonstrating acceptable fit."
## [373] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The reduced model of 15 items showed better goodness-of-fit indices for the 2-factor model than with 16 items (Chi-squared(85) = 514.098; p < 0.001; n = 586; CFI = 0.986; CFIscaled = 0.937; NFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.983; SRMR = 0.064; RMSEA = 0.093). The second-order latent factor model also presented an acceptable fit (Chi-squared(85) = 514.098; p < 0.001; n = 586; CFI = 0.986; CFIscaled = 0.937; NFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.983; SRMR = 0.064; RMSEA = 0.093). Measurement Invariance: The fit to the data of each individual group was globally acceptable. Results supported the structural invariance of the OLBI between Portugal and Brazil. The measurement invariance for OLBI among sexes was obtained, since full uniqueness measurement invariance was observed with the support of the Cheung and Rensvold (2002) criterion and of the Chen (2007) criterion."
## [374] "Exploratory Analysis: EFA yielded 2 factors that explained 52.42% of the variance (32.42% for first factor; 20% the second factor). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA conducted on the sample (n = 310) demonstrated good fit to the data: chi-square/sd = 2.43, RMSEA = 0.68, GFI = 0.935, AGFI = 0.905, NFI = 0.902, CFI = 0.94."
## [375] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA using Varimax rotation revealed 3 factors that paralleled the theoretical dimensions of destination brand authenticity. After eliminating 3 low-loading items (< 0.40), the remaining 9 items (3 per factor) explained a total of 77% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using maximum likelihood estimation for the study 2 sample (n = 99; Spanish tourists), demonstrated satisfactory fit: chi-square = 29.61, df = 24, chi-square/df = 1.23, p = 0.198, CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.88, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.04. CFA was also conducted with the entire study 3 sample (n = 508; US and UK tourists), showing similarly satisfactory model fit values. Measurement Model: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) of the causal-predictive model showed a positive, and direct influence on behavioral intentions (Beta = 0.282, p < 0.001), and on destination brand authenticity (Beta = 0.688, p < 0.001)."
## [376] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using principal axis factoring, was conducted on a split sample (sample 1; n = 200). Results of parallel analysis indicated a 2-factor solution accounting for 75% of the variance. Three items tapping into the college response to LGBTQ students loaded onto Factor 1 (eigenvalue = 3.43), and accounted for 57% of the variance. Three items tapping into LGBTQ stigma on campus loaded onto Factor 2 (eigenvalue = 1.07), and accounted for 18% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on a split sample (sample 2; n = 446). Results demonstrated excellent fit to the data: chi-square (8) = 9.89, p = .27, CFI = .999, TLI = .997, RMSEA = .023 (PCLOSE = .84), and RMR = .046. Moreover, all factor loadings were statistically significant, with standardized values ranging from .76 to 87."
## [377] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA examined the latent structure of the items using the first-round data, which revealed an 11-factor solution having 66 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using a sample of participants from a polytechnic college and the hospitality industry (n = 600), found a 6-factor solution having 33 items. Item Response Theory (IRT) further reduced the scale based on the highest value of discrimination parameters, to gain the most test information. The resulting 24 items underwent to a final EFA, producing a more robust structure within a 6-factor solution. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used the second-round sample (n = 440) to test the factor loading structure. Results supported the 6-factor solution, which compared more favorably to a more parsimonious model where all 24 items load onto a single latent factor, a 2-factor model, and a 3-factor model."
## [378] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model consisting of 12 subscales loading onto four dispositions and 36 observed factors (questionnaire statements/questions) was tested. The obtained results confirmed the structure of the questionnaire: χ2 (DF = 528, N = 935) = 2411.78, p>0.05; RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.06; CFI = 0.93; NFI = 0.91; and GFI = 0.92. In the second stage, 12 sub-factors as measured variables and four latent factors were employed. The degree of model fit was assessed using several criteria, the combination of which brought informed judgments about the overall adequacy of the model fit: χ2 (DF = 50, N = 935) = 351.64, p>0.05; the standardized root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.079; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)=0.053; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.94; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.95; and goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.94."
## [379] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using principal axis factoring and Promax rotation was conducted on a subsample of the total sample, matched for both gender and age. Results indicated a 3-factor latent structure that explained 47.39% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA conducted on a subsample of the total sample, matched for both gender and age, demonstrated good model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.91, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.06. A second CFA conducted on the entire sample (n = 1707) revealed the same 3-factor latent structure identified in the EFA and in the first CFA. Moreover, all the items showed they had only one significant loading (i.e., higher than 0.40) in only one of the three latent dimensions. Goodness of fit was presented as CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.05."
## [380] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA for the Student Maltreatment by Teachers scale suggested the scale was unidimensional. EFAs for the Student Violence against Students and School Victimization by School Peers scales extracted three subscales for both. Structural Equation Modeling: The results of the analysis, based on the total sample, provided a good fit to the data [chi-square (67, N = 1,376) = 420.33, p<.001, and with NFI = .95, IFI = .96, CFI = .96, and RMSEA = .06]. This suggested that the model is a good one."
## [381] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The independent two-factor model yielded a slightly better fit to the data than did the correlated two-factor model (r = .07, p = .14), chi-square (34, n = 606) = 98.59, p < .01; RMSEA = .056 with a 90% CI [.043, .069]; CFI = .98; and TLI = .97. Measurement Invariance: The scalar invariant model across genders was supported and male students reported using suppression to a greater degree than female students."
## [382] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four factors were extracted for 62.88% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA results indicated that the four-factor model has a very satisfactory fit to the data. Measurement Invariance: The four-way model EMAC-E factors show a good fit for the group in condition for success (n = 162), χ2 = 63.25, dof = 48, RMSEA = .04, IC 90% = .00-.07, SRMR = .06, CFI = .95, TLI = .93 and for the group in failure condition (n = 148), χ2 = 44.51, dof = 48, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = .00-.05, SRMR = .05, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00. The configural model presents very satisfactory adjustment indices (see Table 3) signifying that the factor structure can be considered similar in the two groups (Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The comparison between the metric invariance model and the configural model, indicates that the addition of invariance constraints on the factorial weights does not have did not result in a significant decrease in model fit."
## [383] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: During CFA to assess the SLA-SF-46E (Shek et al., 2018a), the authors restored one factor -- Implicit theory of leadership -- omitted due to low item-total correlation values. This factor (renamed in the SLA-SF-46 as \"Unchangeable and dark human nature\") and its 7 items were added back to SLA-SF-46E, to form an 8-factor, 53-item model (i.e., Model 2). Additional CFA refinement resulted in a finalized 46 items with 8 factors (i.e., Model 3), which underwent a final CFA. Results showed adequate model fit [chi-square (961) = 5773.33, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.047 (0.046, 0.049), SRMR = 0.06]. Measurement Invariance: The SLA-SF-46 was tested across gender, and across two sub-samples that were split based on odd and even case numbers of the total sample (n = 2,240). Model fit for each test was acceptable. Measurement invariance across gender and for the \"odd\" and \"even\" groups suggested that all shared the same factor structure."
## [384] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA revealed a 3-factor solution that explained 31% of the variance. Rasch analysis: Results found 6 items to be potentially misfit leading up to CFA. Confirmatory factor analysis: Among the various models tested, Model 5, which excluded the negative items from the model and retained the 18 positively phrased items, was the best model that adequately explained the observed data, as shown by the fit indices: SBS-χ2 = (132, N = 672) = 320.828 and p < .001; RMSEA = 0. 045; CFI = 0.911; SRMR = 0.0493; and chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio = 2.43."
## [385] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Two separate CFAs were conducted, in an attempt to replicate the original 5-factor structure of the PAIR (Model 1: Schaefer & Olson, 1981), and the proposed 3-factor structure (Model 2: Moore, McCabe, & Stockdale, 1998). Both CFAs used a sample of individuals involved in same-sex couple relationships (n= 350), and focused on the most commonly reported fit indices (i.e., CFI and RMSEA) to determine the most appropriate factor structure for the sample population. A CFI value greater than .95 and a RMSEA value lower than .06 are both indicative of good model for the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Results showed poor fit for Model 1 (CFI = .56, RMSEA = .12), but better fit for Model 2 (CFI = .79, RMSEA = .086); only one item (Item 28) failed to achieve a factor loading of at least .20, and was therefore eliminated. After further examination, covariance terms were added to Model 2, resulting in fit indices remaining largely unchanged, forming Model 3."
## [386] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA was conducted on the 12 A-ToM items (6 social, 6 physical) for the entire sample (n = 243). Results indicated the presence of 3 components that explained 25.4%, 11.6%, and 8.6% of the variance. Parallel analysis was conducted to confirm the number of components, extracting a 2-component solution. Factor loadings for the first factor ranged from 0.36 to 0.70, and from 0.41 to 0.59 for the second factor. Item analysis reduced the pool of items to a discriminating sub-set to a more manageable number for a test administration, which resulted in 6 Social component items and 6 Physical component items."
## [387] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Single-factor models revealed an adequate fit to the data. The multidimensional structure of adaptive coping provided good fit to the data, chi-square(264) = 431.99, p < .001, chi-square/df = 1.64, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = .07. The multidimensional structure of maladaptive coping also provided good fit to the data, chi-square(389) = 597.86, p < .001, chi-square/df = 1.54, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = .07. Measurement Invariance: The multidimensional structures of adaptive, chi-square(264) = 569.43, p < .001, chi-square/df = 2.16, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [0.05, 0.06], SRMR = .06, and maladaptive coping, chi-square(389) = 792.96, p < .001, chi-square/df = 2.04, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = .06, were tested with data from the overall sample (N = 459), revealing good fit to the data."
## [388] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The variance explained was 16.26% for trust, 15.13% for profit, 23.22% for social, and 19.46% for learning, and the highest explanatory power was for social. The total variance explained was 74.07 > 50.0%, indicating that the first part of the questionnaire had good validity and explanatory power. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA revealed the following results: Chi-squared(98, N = 458) = 400.375, P = 0.001, Chi-squared/df = 4.058 < 5, GFI = 0.90 > 0.9, AGFI = 0.86 > 0.8, CFI = 0.94 > 0.9, NNFI = 0.92 > 0.9, IFI = 0.94 > 0.9, RMSEA = 0.08 < 0.1, indicating that the model’s fit could be accepted (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)."
## [389] "Rasch Analysis: One-, three- and six-dimensional models were evaluated. Results indicated that the fit of the three-dimensional model was significantly better than that of the one-dimensional mo-dells (χ2 [5, N = 581] = 187.58, p <.001) and the fit of the six-dimensional model was significantly better than that of the three-dimensional model (χ2 [15, N = 581] =169.89, p <.001)."
## [390] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted using a random selection of cases, with a subsample (n = 269). Horn's Parallel Analysis suggested retaining two factors, provided that the real eigenvalue exceeds the random eigenvalue. This resulted in an EFA that used only nine of the 15 items from Rubio et al. (1998). The two factors explained 53% of the common variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on a different subsample (n = 237). Results demonstrated very good fit [chi-square S-B = 26.36, gl = 26, p = 0.34; NNFI = 1.0, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = 0.02, IC 90% (0.00, 0.05)]."
## [391] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA with varimax rotation suggested a 3-factor model, with 69% of the total item variance accounted for. Two items had to be deleted: 1 (due to strong negative loading) and 6 (due to double loading on multiple factors). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted at T2 using the same item breakdown for each scale found at T1. After modifications were made in which the error terms for four items were allowed to be correlated, model fit was deemed to be acceptable: χ²(28, N = 278) = 253.71, p < .01; CFI = .96, TLI = .94, SRMR = .10, and RMSEA = .10."
## [392] "Confirmatory factor analysis: A CFA was estimated with six factors, targeting the main dimensions of r-RST: chi-square(2,000, N = 603) = 6,601.374, p < .001, CFI = .807, RMSEA = .062. The fit indices1 revealed a similar fit as the English RST-PQ (Corr & Cooper, 2016; CFI = .87)."
## [393] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The factorial solution derived from the MRFA factor analysis revealed that this two-factor structure explained 52.66% of the total variance of the questionnaire. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model presented a good fit, chi-square (349, N = 271) = 618, RMSEA = 0.053, 90% confidence interval [0.046, 0.060], NNFI = .953, CFI = .957. All the factorial loadings of the items were statistically different from zero (t > 1.96)."
## [394] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA with maximum likelihood estimation method revealed a 4-factor solution (N = 152, χ2 (152) = 255.91 p <0.001, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.67 [90% CI = 0.048, 0.069])."
## [395] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA results showed good fit to data (Satorra–Bentler Scaled χ² [269, N = 410] = 306.94, p = 0.05; CFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.89; IFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.019; RMSEA 90% interval [0.000, 0.027]). Measurement Invariance: Multiple-group measurement invariance tests were performed on the SJT and gamified SJT scales, to assess cross-validation among samples. Findings showed that chi-square differences were relatively large; however, invariant factor variances are considered the least important in testing measurement property invariance across groups (Bollen, 1989; Marsh, 1995). Therefore, some evidence of partial measurement invariance was apparent across the samples."
## [396] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using principal component analysis was applied to extract the factors of 29 items of the ISMI scale. Findings indicated that the Indonesian version of the ISMI scale contains five factors, namely stereotype endorsement, social withdrawal, alienation, discrimination experience, and stigma resistance–all similar to the case in the original scale by Boyd Ritsher et al. (2003). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model structure was examined by measuring data compatibility on the basis of several fit indices. CFA indicated adequate fit through a number of these indices, chiefly chi-square(702.03, N = 280) = 1.91, p < .001, GFI = 0.85, AGFI = 0.82, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, and SRMR = 0.02. Additionally, all factors of the ISMI scale indicated adequate factor loading from .51 to .94."
## [397] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA identified two factors had eigenvalues greater than one. The first factor explained 64% of variance, and the second factor explained 6.84% of the variance. An examination of the factor loadings indicated that item #13 (“I don’t feel very good about the way my health care practitioner talks to me about my health”) did not meet the threshold of .40 or higher and was eliminated from the CFA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A one-factor model and a two-factor intercorrelated model for the HCCQ were tested using CFA. The two-factor model showed a slightly better fit, chi-square = (91, N = 186), = 211.21, chi-square/df = 3.56, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, BIC = 8,827.57, and RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.08, 0.11]. Overall, the results support the two-factor model as the fit indices showed a better fit for the model than the one-factor model."
## [398] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA indicated a single factor which explained 62.7% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For the proposed factor model, the goodness-of-fit indices yielded the following values: chi-square (170, N = 176) = 452.856, p < 0.001; Normed Chi-Square (chi-square/Df) 452.856/170 = 2.66; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; and RMSEA = 0.09 (CI 90% = 0.086, 0.01), which generally indicated a good fit of the model. The validity of the measurement model is supported by both theoretical criteria based on a deep conceptual review and expert opinion and semi-structured interviews with professionals and a primary caregiver of palliative patients, as well as the confirmatory factor analysis, which shows the suitability of the model to the goodness-of-fit criteria, with the exception of the RMSEA approximation error rate."
## [399] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA examined the 14 items meeting content criteria with a sample of individuals recruited via Amazon's MTurk (n = 100). Principal Component Analysis: PCA using Varimax rotation revealed a 2-component solution that explained 85.91% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using a second sample of individuals recruited via Amazon's MTurk (n = 301), removed 8 items due to their highly correlating with multiple items or other constructs. The remaining 6 items fit the data well: The overall model fit with the remaining 6 items was almost perfect (chi-square = 4.56, p = .80, df = 8, chi-square /df ratio = .57, NFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .01."
## [400] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA with varimax rotation used a subsample (n = 253) to conduct exploratory factor analysis. The results showed that 5 factors were extracted from a total of 15 items. The 5-factor solution explained 76.95% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the measurement model with the same subsample (n = 253) as was used for EFA. Measurement Model: The results of analysis showed that model fit indices satisfied all acceptable criteria, fitting the data well."
## [401] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA revealed a single-factor construct explaining 51.9% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model is around the borders of admissible fit index and factor loads varied between 0.51 and 0.83. The model was deemed within the limits of goodness of fit index as the RMSEA value of the model was 0.91; chi-square was statistically significant (χ2 = 486; n = 155, sd = 214 p = 0.00), χ2/sd = 486/214 = 2.28, CFI value was 0.945 and GFI value was 0.927."
## [402] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The current task was analyzed along with other measures of WMC. In comparison with two- and three-factor models, the fit of the one-factor model was very good: Chi-squared (5, N = 236) = 9.87, Chi-squared/df = 1.97, CFI = .99, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .02. Although the two-factor model appeared to fit the data slightly better than did the one-factor model, the difference in chi-square values for the two models was non-significant by a chi-square difference test. Thus, the hypothesis for a domain-general WMC construct could not be rejected."
## [403] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The current task was analyzed along with other measures of WMC. In comparison with two- and three-factor models, the fit of the one-factor model was very good: Chi-squared (5, N = 236) = 9.87, Chi-squared/df = 1.97, CFI = .99, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .02. Although the two-factor model appeared to fit the data slightly better than did the one-factor model, the difference in chi-square values for the two models was non-significant by a chi-square difference test. Thus, the hypothesis for a domain-general WMC construct could not be rejected."
## [404] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The current task was analyzed along with other measures of WMC. In comparison with two- and three-factor models, the fit of the one-factor model was very good: Chi-squared (5, N = 236) = 9.87, Chi-squared/df = 1.97, CFI = .99, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .02. Although the two-factor model appeared to fit the data slightly better than did the one-factor model, the difference in chi-square values for the two models was non-significant by a chi-square difference test. Thus, the hypothesis for a domain-general WMC construct could not be rejected."
## [405] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An initial EFA was conducted on the items using a subsample (Sample A; n = 251), revealing 6 factors with eigenvalues > 1; however, the scree plot and parallel analysis suggested a 4-factor solution. After removing weak (< .40) and cross-loading items, the remaining 4 factors, with 16 items and eigenvalues > 1, accounted for 74.8% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted using a second subsample (Sample B; n = 260) to assess the 4-factor model found via EFA, and also a 1-factor model, a 2nd-order model (i.e., with a general factor representing the 4-factor model, to determine support for a hierarchical structure), and a bifactor model (i.e., a general factor plus the 4 factors identified in the EFA). All models except the 1-factor model demonstrated satisfactory fit. Of the remaining models, the bifactor model demonstrated the best fit to the data."
## [406] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed the unidimensionality of the SBPS in the Study 3 sample (n = 2,592). As in Study 2, fit indices indicated a good fit of the single factor model to the observed data: CFI = .978, TLI = .970, RMSEA = .061, SRMR = .025, with the exception of the chi-square result, chi-square (20) = 205.57, p < .001; however, the authors noted that use of the chi-square test may be problematic for large samples."
## [407] "Principal Components Analysis: PCA was initially used to assess the number of factors for the RMQ, revealing 3 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Factor Analysis: Using the Study 2 sample (n = 264), it was reported that Factors 1 (Personal Control), 2 (External Control), and 3 (Stability) accounted for 26.74%, 20.62%, and 15.31% of the total variance, respectively (62.68% of total variance overall)."
## [408] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on the 16 items administered to the convenience sample (n = 509). Results indicated a unifactorial structure that explained 51% of the variance. Subsequently, 9 items meeting elimination criteria were progressively removed. A second EFA conducted on the remaining 7 items again indicated a unifactorial structure, which in this second iteration explained the 57% of the variance."
## [409] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on the 7-factor structure identified through the literature review (n = 644). CFA also tested a 1-factor model, with all items loading onto it. Results showed the 7-factor structure as demonstrating the best fit for the data, with the items measuring the factors they were proposed to measure."
## [410] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results of the CFA supported the hypothesized five-factor structure of the 19-item scale. The fit statistics met the criteria for an acceptable fitting model, chi-square (142, N = 281) = 292.08, p < .001, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, SRMR = .06, and RMSEA = .06."
## [411] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on the initial 29 items using participants in Wave 1 of instrument development (n = 135). Three factors were extracted that explained 62.39% of the variance. A second EFA was conducted to reduce the number of items, resulting again in the same 3-factor solution, with factor loadings at .45 or higher and no significant cross-loadings (i.e., > .32). The model explained 81.78% of the variance and contained 21 items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was used to confirm the factor structure identified through EFA using data collected during Wave 2 (n = 307). The resulting fit indices showed that the model was a good fit for the data: chi-square (24) = 55.31, p < .001, NNFI = .973, CFI = .982, SRMR = .027, RMSEA = .065 (90% confidence interval [.043, .089], p = .125)."
## [412] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An exploratory factor analysis using a minimal residual (ordinary least squares) factoring method and oblimin rotation was conducted to examine the structure of the questionnaire. Visual examination of the screen plot and parallel analysis revealed a four-factor structure: χ² (df = 101,N = 138) = 148.21,p < .0016, Tucker-Lewis Index of factoring reliability = .918, root mean square error of approximation = .065 (10% confidence interval = .037, .078), root mean square of the residuals = .04. Three items (Q7, Q8, and Q19) were removed due to low or cross factor loadings."
## [413] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The measurement model fitted the data well across all countries (χ2 (207, N = 4591) = 1218.61, p < .001, χ2/df = 5.89, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.03 (90% CI [0.03, 0.03], SRMR = 0.03)). Measurement Invariance: The model equally fitted the data well in each country, confirming configural invariance. Metric and scalar invariance were also established."
## [414] "Exploratory Factor Analysis. EFA was conducted on the 89 initial items, using a subsample of the participants (Study 1: n = 203). The scree plot results revealed a 3-factor model that accounted for 52.85% of the total variance. Cross-loading and nonsignificant loading items were sequentially removed until a simple structure was reached that was comprised of 18 items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted using a subsample of the participants (Study 2: n = 199) to assess the 3-factor, 18-item structure. Results showed the model to have good fit: chi-square (df = 132) = 192.78, comparative fit index (CFI) = .90, goodness of fit index (GFI) = .95, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .96, and root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .05."
## [415] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Findings supported the structure of the four-factor hypothesized model. The chi-square value for the model was χ²(164, N = 142) = 521.30, p < .001. In addition, the comparative fit index (CFI) = .91, the Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI) = .88, the Bollen's incremental fit index (IFI) = .91, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .90, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .10, and the standard root mean square residual (SRMR) = .05 were obtained."
## [416] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA revealed 3 factors. The first factor, (A/U), contained 10 items and explained 48.98% of the variance. The second factor, (E/A), contained 8 items and explained 5.3% of the variance. The third factor, (F/A), contained 6 items and explained 3.63% of the variance. This version the CORS (the CORS-24) consisted of 24 items that were theoretically consistent with the authors' definition of clericalism. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed the 3-factor structure found via EFA. After removing 6 items the loaded poorly, results revealed a finalized 18-item measure (the CORS-18). Moreover, the 3 factors were determined to be first-order factors that loaded onto a second-order factor (CORS). The second-order CORS model supported a total CORS score and demonstrated good fit: 2(129, N = 391) = 308.572, p < .001, (SRMSR = .05, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06, 90% confidence interval [.05, .07])."
## [417] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed an inadequate fit for the original EDE-Q structure but revealed a good fit for an alternative structure suggested by recent research with predominately overweight/obese samples (i.e., Hrabosky et al., 2008; Grilo et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). CFA supported a modified seven-item, three-factor structure; the three factors were interpreted as dietary restraint, shape/weight overvaluation, and body dissatisfaction. Measurement Invariance: Factor loadings and item intercepts were found to be invariant across sex (all p's > .120) and overweight (BMI ≤ 25 vs.> 25; N = 205 with BMI > 25) status (all p's > .150). However, residual item variances and factor means were significantly higher for females (all p's < .0001) and those with BMI > 25 (all p's < .035)."
## [418] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results showed the model closely fitting the data: χ² (524, n = 2,098) = 2,226.47, RMSEA = .04, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.038, .041], CFI = .97. All hypothesized factor loadings were substantial and significant. Measurement Invariance: Three CFAs were conducted on successive CFA models, to successively evaluate configural, weak, and strong invariance (Little, Preacher, Selig, & Card, 2007). All three tests indicated measurement equivalence. CFA also evaluated the hypothesized measurement structure of the longitudinal model, including the T1 contextual measures (socialization, beliefs, and perceived parental SES), the T1 financial identity, and the T2 measures of financial identity."
## [419] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA was conducted to find the common dimensions in the 15 care dependency items. For the total sample (n = 525), the first factor had an eigenvalue of 9.28, which explained 61.9% of the variance. Factor extraction for the four combined countries demonstrated that all 15 items loaded on the first factor. Factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.86. As none of the items had a factor loading lower than 0.40, no item reduction occurred. Individually, each of the four countries showed corresponding findings on the first factor. The results supported a one-factor solution both for each country and for the four data sets combined."
## [420] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA assessed factor structure by using principal axis factoring and orthogonal (Varimax) rotation in a subsample (n = 295). The Kaiser criterion indicated a 3-factor structure that explained 74.27% of the total variance, with 3 items loading onto each factor. Confiirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA using a different subsample (n = 285) demonstrated good model fit: chi-square /df = 2.02 (chi-square 24, N=285 = 48.5; p < .001), TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.59 (90% CI = between 0.30 and 0.90)."
## [421] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA revealed a 4-factor solution that explained 59.83% of the variance. Correlations among the 4 factors showed strong associations among the first 3 factors. But the fourth factor (Patient involvement) showed only significant correlation with the second factor (Interaction and support). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA showed the Patient involvement construct having a low loading of 0.12 on the higher-order perceptions of the handover construct, which explained only 1% of its variance; consequently, this factor was removed. The remaining 3 factors underwent additional analysis and modification using a validation sample (n = 170). The replication model provided adequate fit to the data (χ² = 140.94, df = 68, p = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.08, with an associated 90% confidence interval of 0.06–0.09, SRMR = 0.07 and CFI = 0.91). As 6 of the 20 original HES items (O'Connell, MacDonald, & Kelly, 2008) were removed, a finalized 14-item revised instrument resulted."
## [422] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A one-factor solution was accepted with an Eigenvalue of 14.5, accounting for 68.8% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The resulting model was a robust fit to the data as follows: χ2 (2, N = 1973) = 7.47, p = 0.024, RMSEA = 0.04, TLI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00. Significant factor pattern coefficients were found indicating that the construct was well captured by the individual items retained."
## [423] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A one-factor solution was accepted with an Eigenvalue of 4.98, accounting for 71.2% of the variance. The factor loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.92 and were all retained. Confirmatory Factor analysis: Following the removal items, the model exhibited good fit: χ²(5, N=1973)=28.36, p<0.001, RMSEA=0.05, TLI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99 (despite the significant chi-square test due to the large sample size)."
## [424] "Confirmatory factor analysis: For the treatment-seeking sample (English YSL-SF), fit indices showed a better fit for the model containing two correlated factors, χ2(19, N = 95) = 29.58, p > .05, CFI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.077, than the one‐factor model, χ2(20, N = 95) = 34.55, p < .05, CFI = 0.934, RMSEA = 0.088. The two‐factor solution was also favored by a significant χ2 difference test, Δχ2(Δdf) = 4.99 (1), p < .05. For the community samples (Dutch and German YSL-SF), a one-factor model provided a good fit (chi-square (df) = 34.55, p < .05, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.088, SRMR = 0.047)."
## [425] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Exploratory factor analyses revealed a clear six-factor structure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final 6-factor model with free covariances between items showed a better-fitting model than all previously tested models, χ2 = 1005.38, df = 306, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05. The higher order model with broadband positive and negative factors also demonstrated good fit, χ2 (317, N = 1,066) = 1082.16, p > .10, RMSEA = .048, 95% CI [.044–.051], CFI = .92, SRMR = .061. Measurement Invariance: Strong to strict measurement invariance for child gender, parent gender, and child age were found."
## [426] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A varimax rotated factor analysis of the 12 items identified for inclusion resulted in a four-factor solution (these factors were not labeled by the authors), with 10 of the items loading well. While communalities on three of the items were very low, they still shared at least 23% of the variance with the extracted component. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A satisfactory fit was obtained (Chi-square (51, N=1540) = 255.419, p=0.0001; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.960; Comparative Fit Index = 0.957; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.050)."
## [427] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Using a subsample (n = 136) for analysis, EFA results indicated a 5-factor solution. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used a second subsample (n = 204) to assess the 5-factor solution found via EFA. Analysis also considered a second-order model. While the second-order model showed good fit to the data, the 5-factor first-order model showed slightly better fit indices: CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.948; SRMR = 0.045; RMSEA = 0.038 [90% CI: 0.020, 0.053]."
## [428] "Exploratory factor analysis: EFA supported a 3-factor solution (CFI = .960; RMSEA = .041; chi-square (348, N = 2285) = 1662.065, p < 0.001; TLI = .951). Confirmatory and SEM: The orthogonal, two-factor model above was employed in a CFA, resulting again in fit parameters just short of conventional thresholds (CFI = .946; RMSEA = .042; chi-square (405, N = 3377), p < 0.001; TLI = .942). Valences of all loadings were as predicted. Again, the threefactor model was a better fit (CFI = .970; RMSEA = .032; chi-square (395, N = 3377) = 1782.342, thus confirming the great tradition/little tradition model of Burmese Buddhist religiosity in its three-factor form."
## [429] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA with Promax rotation resulted in the removal of items 11 and 12, as they were identical to Items 1 and 2, respectively. Eight of the remaining items loaded on the first factor which explained 37.892% of the postrotation variance and, 2 items loaded on the second factor with 11.329% of the postrotation variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA confirmed the factor structure obtained from EFA with good fit indices: chi-square (31, N = 252) = 75.794, p<.001; chi-square/df = 2.445, adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .900, goodness-of-fit index = .943, comparative fit index = .933, Tucker–Lewis index = .903, incremental fit index = .934, standardized root mean square residual = .0545, and root mean square error of approximation = .076 (90% confidence interval = .054–.098)."
## [430] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA revealed mediocre fit for a one-factor structure of the PHQ-9, regardless of diagnostic status (chi-square 27[N = 762]. 211.188; p = 0.00; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; RMSEA = 0.095; [0.08–0.11]; SRMR = 0.107)."
## [431] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on a random half of the sample (n= 740). The scree plot suggested a 5-factor solution. Analyses with 4-, 5-, and 6-factor solutions indicated that a 4-factor solution would yield the most parsimonious fit. EFA results also showed that the 2 JVQ items related to accidents and illnesses of loved ones yielded negative loadings on child maltreatment, and were the only items with negative loadings on any factor. Once these items were removed from further analysis, a 4-factor model with 31 items resulted."
## [432] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: After the elimination of the anomalies under the multivariate outlier analysis and subsequent exploratory factor analyses in the context of sample 2 with the remaining cases (n = 2443), an interpretable model with k = 6 factors and 15 items was chosen. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The p-value of the chi-square test is <0.001. The RMSEA is 0.044 (95% confidence interval (0.040; 0.048)). After Hu and Bentler (1998) indicates a RMSEA <0.06 a high model quality. The value of the SRMR is 0.032, the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) is 0.947, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is 0.962. These three parameters also indicate a high model quality (ibid.). This appears when all relevant parameters are taken into account Overall model adequate and acceptable."
## [433] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: In total, the six factors explained 71.4% of the sample variance. The number of items for each factor was reduced to 4 by selecting the items that loaded exclusively on their appropriate factor, and that the highest coefficients (all above .30). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: This final 6-factor model revealed an adequate fit; χ2(234, N = 339) = 531.97 p<.001, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .06, and PCFI = .78. All estimated parameters of the model were significant and within an acceptable range."
## [434] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After the deletion of Item 9, the confirmatory factorial analysis suggested a good model fit for the three factors: χ2 = 142.357 (DF = 18, N = 856), CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.02."
## [435] "Principal components analysis: PCA for the final set of 17 items yielded three components with eigenvalues over 1.00, cumulatively accounting for 56.72% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis: After adding correlations between several pairs of error factors, the model appeared to be a good fit to the data based on the fit indexes used. While the chi-square value was statistically significant (105, N = 448) = 222.99, p = .001, the Goodness of Fit (GFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were .944, .965, .954, and .965, respectively, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was .050 [90% CI(.041–.060)]. These results suggest that the subscales Cultural Presentation Appropriateness, Language Appropriateness, and Appealing to the White Ideal are reasonable measures of Latina American shifting."
## [436] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using a sample of primary and secondary school students (n = 236), assessed the teachers' (Moreno-Murcia et al., 2008), parents', and peers' Spanish language versions (Gonzalez-Cutre et al., 2014) of the original Perceived Autonomy Support Scale for Exercise Settings (PASSES; Hagger et al, 2007). Results showed that only items 5, 9, 10, and 12 of the three versions met Hair et al.'s (2018) proposed psychometric requirements; consequently, the PASS-ACS resulted in a one-factor solution with 12 items spread across three sections (i.e., teachers, parents, and peers). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used a different sample of primary and secondary school students (n = 712) to assess the one-factor solution found via EFA. Results showed good fit to the data for each of the three sections. Measurement Invariance: Multi-group factor analysis showed no statistically significant difference (p > .05), resulting in a null hypothesis of invariance across gender."
## [437] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on the combined data from Studies 1 and 2 (N = 103), to determine the number of reliable factors that could be extracted from the data. As expected, the results showed that only one reliable factor could be extracted, which explained 54% of the variance; these results mirrored the unidimensionality of the dementia version of the BRCM (Riley et al., 2013)."
## [438] "Exploratory Factor Analysis using the maximum likelihood method with an oblimin rotation revealed a parsimonious 2-factor solution that explained 63.65% of the total variance and was comprised of 19 items designed to measure the 2 proposed dimensions of escapism. Low loading items were removed, resulting in 11 retained items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis with maximum likelihood estimation, conducted on a second subsample revealed an adequate factorial structure: χ² (43, N = 151) = 198.6, NFI = .904, CFI = .923, RMSEA = .01. Moreover, all factor loadings were reported to be greater than .56 on their respective factor. Good fit indices were also noted: χ² (43, N = 302) = 123.2, NFI = .931, CFI = .954, RMSEA = .079."
## [439] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation was conducted on the CORSI's initial 30 items, using a subsample of the undergraduate sample (n = 813). Five interpretable factors were revealed after removing four complex items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used a second subsample of the undergraduate sample (n = 813). The results confirmed the five-factor model, which demonstrated good fit following the addition of four covariance terms (goodness of fit index = .897, comparative fit index = .918, Tucker–Lewis index = .907, root mean square error approximation = .061). After CFA, the finalized CORSI had 26 items."
## [440] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For Standard A: Welcoming and meeting culture, the CFA results showed good model fit indices, χ2 (49, N = 309) = 145.86, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08. For Standard B: Various and respectful communication, the CFA results demonstrated good model fit indices, χ2 (85, N = 309) = 261.88, CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08. For Standard C: Educational cooperation, the CFA results showed good model fit indices, χ2 (260, N = 309) = 681.166, CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07. For Standard D: Parent participation, the CFA results revealed good model fit indices, χ2 (69, N = 309) = 203.70, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08. The results showed that the measurement models of the four subscales exhibited good fits to the data."
## [441] "Principal Axis Factor Analysis: Following the removal of items due to cross-loadings, the principal axis factor analysis for the final set of 12 items yielded two factors with eigenvalues over 1.00, and one factor yielding an eigenvalue of .95, cumulatively accounting for 65.17% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was performed on the 12-item AsAWSS items to evaluate the hypothesized three-factor structure. The model appeared to be a good fit to the data. The initial analysis resulted in a statistically significant chi-square value of 97.690 (51, N = 247) p < .001, but due to the sensitivity of this measure to sample size, other fit measures were used. The GFI (Goodness of Fit Index: .936), IFI (Incremental Fit Index: .960), TLI (Tucker Lewis Index: .947), CFI (Comparative Fit Index: .959), and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation: .061, 90% CI: .042–.079) taken together suggested an adequate to good fit of the model to the data."
## [442] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFAs yielded a satisfactory fit for the two-factor model: χ2 [15, N = 538] = 62.104, p < .001, CFI = .986, SRMR = .028 and RMSEA = .076. CFAs were also employed separately for different subsamples, namely those respondents who were finally selected for the fMRI study as well as those remaining respondents who were not selected. In accordance with the findings for the whole sample, a satisfactory model fit was only obtained for the two-factor model. Factor-analytical findings were confirmed for the data of an independent sample of respondents who completed the PPES in a further evaluation study (two-factor model: CFI = .986, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .036, factor intercorrelation = .729; one-factor model: CFI = .822, RMSEA = .246, SRMR = .087)."
## [443] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on a sample of parents of adolescents aged 11–18 years (n = 256). The Resulting 21-item measure comprised a 3-factor solution that explained 59.69% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed a 19-item version of the PARS, due to errors in online survey; 2 items were removed. Further analysis removed 4 non-fitting Connectedness items, resulting in a 15-item instrument across all groups. Measurement Invariance: Structural equation modeling (SEM) assessed measurement invariance across the 3 parallel 15-item versions (parent, adolescent, emerging adult). One-factor congeneric models for each subscale tested the multi-factor measurement model. Measurement Invariance: The latent variables and indicators were tested across groups, with results showing that one-factor congeneric modeling provided support for the 3-factor, 15-item PARS structure for both adolescent and emerging adult samples."
## [444] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Exploratory cluster analysis identified eight factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: In the CFA of the final 37 items in the other half of the split sample (n = 545), two indices, namely RMSEA and SRMR, met the fit requirements: RMSEA = .055 (95% Confidence Interval .052 - .058; CFI = .860; TLI = .845; SRMR = .064; and Chi-square = 1597.7 (df 601, p < .0001)."
## [445] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The six-factor solution showed a chi-square of 231.36 (df = 120, N = 209), a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.068, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.88, a Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) of 0.85, and a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of 0.89."
## [446] "Exploratory Factor Analysis; EFA assessed a sample of employees (Sample 1; n = 328) using principal axis factoring and promax rotation. The results showed the 7 retained items loading on one factor, explaining 71.05% of the total variance. Moreover, all factor loadings exceeded .60. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted with different sets of conceptually relevant constructs to assess Samples 2 (n = 243), 3 (n = 279), and 4 (n = 267). Measurement Model: Seven measurement models (from 1- to 10-factors) were used to evaluate six types of unethical business practices. Across all samples, the results demonstrated that the hypothesized 5-factor model fit the data significantly better than the other models across the samples in both studies."
## [447] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The 24-item six-factor correlated model obtained a good fit chi-square(237, N = 478 = 553.25, p<.001; chi-square/df 2.33; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; IFI = .93; SRMR = .047; RMSEA = .053 (90% CI = .047, .059). Measurement Invariance: The results from the two multi-group analyses provide support for the instrument’s invariance across gender and age."
## [448] "Exploratory factor analysis: Based on EFA results, 15 items across four factors were identified, yielding adequate fit indices: chi-square (df 91, N = 236) = 1162.555, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.943; TLI = 0.874; SRMR = 0.025."
## [449] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used a subsample (n = 350) to assess factor structure, extracting one factor. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using a subsample (n = 350), confirmed the one-factor result found via EFA."
## [450] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used a subsample (n = 350) to assess factor structure; a one-factor solution was extracted. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Using a subsample (n = 350), CFA confirmed the one-factor solution found via EFA."
## [451] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used a sample of MTurk participants (n = 594) and a sample of Canadian undergraduates (n = 540) to test the 19 items. In both samples, inspection of the eigenvalues, scree plot, and factor loadings a 2-factor solution was suggested that had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Nine items were removed for not meeting loading criteria, resulting in 10 retained items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on the 10 retained items from EFA, using a sample of MTurk participants (n = 392); both a 2-factor model and a one-factor model were compared. The results showed the 1-factor model to have good fit to the data (CFI = .96, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = .05). For the 2-factor model, the items from each factor were combined to form a more parsimonious composite measure. The moderate-to-high correlations observed between the 2 factors across 3 samples suggest that the 2 subdimensions can be justifiably treated as a single dimension for theory-testing purposes."
## [452] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA using maximum likelihood and oblimin rotation, eliminated items with cross loadings above 0.40 and weak loadings below 0.30 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Ultimately, 22 items remained. A second EFA conducted with the remaining 22 items revealed a 4-factor solution with eigenvalues of 8.23, 2.52, 2.15, and 1.59; these represented 37.42%, 11.47%, 9.78% and 7.26% of the variance, respectively, explaining 66% of the total variance (no cross-loadings were observed for any of these items). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used the raw data for the 22 items as a basis for the measurement model. Measurement Model: A hypothesized hierarchical model with one latent dimension and four method dimensions was analyzed. Results showed the model yielding a good fit to the data: chi-square (192, N = 610) = 553.61, p < .001), with a comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, an incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.95, and a root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05."
## [453] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA performed on Sample 1 (n = 1,540) revealed a 5-factor structure for the MET that correspond to the five pillars. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA performed on Sample 2 (n = 1,083) confirmed the 5-factor structure and demonstrated excellent fit (RMSEA = 0.051; pClose = 0.408; CFI = 0.950; TLI = 0.936)."
## [454] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results showed a good fit of the measurement model [chi-square(246, n = 367) = 578.222 (p <.001); chi-square/gl = 2.35; RMSEA = .062 (CI = .055- .069); CFI = .94; GFI = .88; TLI = .93; IFI = .94], with all indices considered within the acceptable range."
## [455] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA identified three factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model fit: chi-square (62, n = 197) = 106.936, p < .05, chi-square/df = 1.72, RMSEA = .063 (90% CI: .042–.082), SRMR = .072, CFI = .914, and TLI = .891."
## [456] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Following parallel analysis and the removal of items due to low- and cross-loadings, principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation suggested a three-factor solution. Visual inspection of the scree plot, eigenvalues, and percent of variance accounted for also suggested three factors. The first factor accounted for 45% of variance in the data and the second and third factor accounted for 6% and 5% of additional variance in the data, respectively. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA confirmed a 17-item higher order model with three specific factors and one higher order general factor. Fit for this model was as follows: 𝜒² (116, N = 201) = 190.300, p < .001, CFI = .954, SRMR = .045, RMSEA = .056 (90% CI: .042, .071), AIC = 8137.515, BIC = 8315.893."
## [457] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The three-factor solution with 16 items accounted for 43.96% of the variance in the SKAMMS items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit statistics for this three-factor oblique model were acceptable, chi-square (101, n = 537) = 298.426, p < .05, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, SRMR =.061, and RMSEA = .060, 90% CI [.052, .068]. Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results indicated that the three-factor bi-factor model provided adequate fit for both groups: for online sample and the in-class sample. Measurement Invariance: Results provided evidence of partial scalar invariance."
## [458] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, using Subsample A (n = 1057), conducted Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) for the 30 draft items. Both a 7- and a 3-factor solution were tested. The 3-factor solution results showed that almost all items loaded > .4 onto a factor and no items cross-loaded > .4 onto a second factor. Item reduction from 30 to 14 was based on low communalities, factor loadings, and content validity results. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using Subsample B (n = 1041), confirmed the 1–4 factor solutions found in the EFA. A higher order CFA tested a bi-factor CFA model with 3- and 4-factor solutions, where items load onto a general factor and specific sub-factors. A second-order CFA was run on the 3-factor solution in which items were indicators of anhedonia sub-factors, and these sub-factors were indicators of an overall factor. Both analyses indicated that the 3-factor solution can measure one underlying construct, as well as a multidimensional measure."
## [459] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Analyses demonstrated that the three-factor CFA model obtained better psychometric properties than three other models tested for the BPNS-ACS. Structural equation modeling CFA: The results showed adequate fit indexes: chi-square (78, N=675) = 163.11, p < .001, chi-square/df = 2.09; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.036; RMSEA = 0.040 (90% CI = 0.032, 0.049; p-close = .969)."
## [460] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Although the tested unidimensional model did not obtain the required chi-square value, chi-square(152) = 375.23, p < .001, N = 1,161, the model-to-data fit indices were very high: RMSEA = .036 (90% CI [.031, .040]), SRMR = .057, CFI = .99, and TLI = .99. Measurement Invariance: The results demonstrated a very good data fit for configural invariance across gender. The results showed full metric invariance with satisfactory model indices."
## [461] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results from confirmatory factor analyses of the IPEMS indicated acceptable-to-good fit of the factors to the data chi-square (df = 190, N = 238) = 5063.86, p < 0.000; RMSEA = 0.08 (90% CI 0.073, 0.092); CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94."
## [462] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The index of fit of the factor structure model indicated a good fit, with the following indices: chi-square (5, N= 1,013)= 1.102, p= .954, TLI= .999, CFI= .999, SRMR= .017, and RMSEA= .001 (CI 95%=.010-.050). Measurement Invariance: Multi-group analyses showed the invariance of the factor structure of FSII-S across gender and age."
## [463] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on the 38 items that resulted from expert panel review, using a sample of undergraduates (n = 340). Six factors were initially extracted via the minimum residual method (Harman & Jones, 1966). Using the orthogonal \"varimax\" rotation criterion to clarify item selection resulted in 4 interpretable factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA resulted in 3 correlated factors, with no correlated errors, for a final 15 items within a 3-factor model. Model fit indices indicated that the correspondence between the 3-factor model and sample covariance matrix was satisfactory: chi-square (87) = 277.08, p) = .000, RMSEA ) = .09, SRMR) = .07, TLI) = .88, CFI) =.90."
## [464] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: An item-level CFA was used to create parcels for a just-identified measurement structure. Parcels were created by pairing items having higher loadings with those having lower loadings (Little et al., 2013). Factor loadings for each construct were constrained to average to one (Little et al., 2006). Fit indices indicated a fairly good fit to the model, χ² (24, n = 307) = 51.040, p = .001; RMSEA = .059, 95% CI [.048–.69]; CFI = .958; TLI = .937; SRMR = .049. All specific dimensions were well-defined, with standardized factor loadings above .500. The Face and Dignity constructs remained significantly correlated, while Face and Honor were negatively correlated. Honor and Dignity were shown to not be related."
## [465] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used principal-axis factoring (PAF) with oblimin rotation on a subsample (n = 331) of participants. The results indicated a 2-factor solution as per the screen test. Factor 1 (Pro-trait protection) contained 9 positively worded items that explained 46.90% of the original data set variance; Factor 2 (Con-trait protection) contained six negatively worded items that explained 14.76% of the original data set variance. Based on the PAF results, and to balance the pro-trait and con-trait items, the initial 15-item scale was reduced to 10 items (5 pro-trait; 5 con-trait) that included the 5 highest factor loadings on each of the factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA using maximum likelihood was performed on the hold-out sample (N = 326), to confirm the 2-factor, 10-item model retained from the PAF. The results yielded an acceptable fit to the data. Also, as expected, the 2 factors were quite strongly related (β = .69)."
## [466] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA used geomin oblique rotation to assess the first half of the sample (n = 652); solutions based on the correlation matrix extracted one to five factors. Analysis focused on a two- and a four-factor solution, with the four-factor solution ultimately being selected. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA used the second half of the sample (n = 698) to assess the model fit of the selected four-factor solution. The results showed strong model fit: χ²(59) = 157.84, p < .01; AIC = 23,369.40; BIC = 23,573.81; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .97; TLI = .96, SRMR = .03. Measurement Invariance: The MSECT used equal-form invariance (Kline, 2011) to calculate separate models for men and women; there were no nonbinary instructors in the sample. Due to an error with identification, the model was rerun, resulting in well-fitting data across gender groups: n = 1,216; χ² (136) = 360.11, p < .01; AIC = 40,491.15; BIC = 40,858.59; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .95; TLI = .94, SRMR = .05."
## [467] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Across both samples, the eigenvalues suggested the presence of five factors, which were clearly interpretable. The five factors accounted for a substantial portion of the total variance (undergraduates: 69.50%; community adults: 74.67%). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The data fit a five‐factor structure well, χ2(109, N = 302) = 416.9, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.08, 0.11], CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.09."
## [468] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA, with principal-axis factor (PAF) analyses and direct oblimin rotation, assessed factor structure in an early adolescent subsample (n = 759). Items with loadings of .40 or less were removed. The scree plot, parallel analysis, and the minimum average partial (MAP) test indicated a 3-factor solution with 16 items, accounting for 43.75% of the total variance. Two structural models were tested: 1) a 3-factor correlated model and 2) a hierarchical model which predicted that the 16 items could be clustered into the 3 factors, combining the 3 first-level factors into a single second-order factor. The results showed good model fit for the 3-factor correlated model. Measurement Invariance: Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) tested for measurement invariance in a sample of Italian middle school students (n = 490). Across gender, the VAF was shown to measure optimism, pessimism, and hope equivalently in boys and girls, and with equal meaning."
## [469] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After the deletion of one item, the modified Spanish TDEQ-5 showed adequate fit for the five-factor model: χ2 (df = 305; N = 322) = 499.64, p<0.01, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .045, SRMR = .055)."
## [470] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on 45 retained items, using the Study 1 sample (n = 208) to test factorial solutions from two to six factors. The results showed that only the two-factor solution satisfied all a priori criteria. The factors were distinct, showing no cross-loading items and a low correlation between the two factors (r = 0.17). Moreover, the factors had adequate intra-factor loadings (greater than 0.40). The two-factor solution contained 22 items. While both direct and indirect items were created equivalently for the two factors, only indirect or reversed scored statements were kept in the Impermanence Acceptance factor after EFA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Using the Study 2 sample (n = 334), CFA tested the 22-item two-factor solution across five stages to confirm factor structure. Items that loaded below 0.50 were removed. This significantly improved model fit for the finalized 13-item IMAAS: Δ χ² (57) = 466.17, p < 0.05."
## [471] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was used to evaluate the structure of the DSI among an initial sample of participants (n = 440). The results revealed a 2-factor solution having eigenvalues greater than 1. Cross-loading items were dropped individually until no items loaded on a second factor ≥ .32; Once all cross-loading items were removed, 7 items (1-4, 9, 10, 13) loaded on Factor 1 and 3 items (15, 16, 19) loaded on Factor 2. Together, these 2 factors accounted for 67% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Item response theory (IRT), using robust maximum likelihood (MLR), assessed each factor separately. For DSPCC, examination of alpha parameters revealed that all items other than item 1 exceeded very high discrimination. Item 1 only achieved moderate discrimination (alpha = .84); therefore, item 1 was removed from further analysis, resulting in a finalized 9 items."
## [472] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was performed on the first sub-group (n = 172). Based on an analysis of the scree plot, a 4-factor solution was identified that accounted for 79.7% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was performed on the second sub-group (n = 172). The results showed satisfactory fit to the data: Chi-square = 118.715 df = 48, p < .01, CFI = 0.98, TLT = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.066 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.051–0.080, p = .042), SRMR = 0.028."
## [473] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA and parallel analysis found a a one-factor solution was supported as the sample eigenvalue was less than the random eigenvalue for the second factor. This first factor accounted for 56.33% of the variance in the items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFA of the one-factor model with the two correlated error items provided an acceptable !t to the data: Satorra-Bentler chi-square (63, N = 1,012) = 282.53, < p .0001; CFI = .941; RMSEA = .059, 90% CI (.052, .066); SRMR = .042. All items loaded saliently (.524 = λ = .830) onto the single common factor. The correlation of the errors for Items 10 and 11 was .317 and for Items 12 and 13 was .467 (both ps < .001). Measurement Invariance: Support was found for scalar invariance across each group, suggesting that the SRSCUD is equivalent across these groups; thus, mean differences were able to be interpreted as reflective of true differences on the latent construct rather than measurement artifact."
## [474] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal components analysis with oblimin rotation identified three factors emerged that explained together 58.83% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The three-factor model seemed not to fit adequately the data (RMSEA = 0.080, CFI = 0.889). Because of the high correlation between the item 13 and item 40 in comparison with the other items that loaded on the same factor, the model was re-specified, including an error covariance between item 13 and item 40. This new model seemed to fit adequately the chi-square(50, N =223) = 110.17, < .001, chi-square/df = 2.20, RMSEA = .074 (90% CI = .055–.092), SRMR = .063, TLI = .878 and CFI = .907."
## [475] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The items from the five common dimensions (the ones common to both tribes) were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. This measurement model provided a good fit, χ2 (106, N = 500) = 275.70, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .06. A second-order factor analysis was completed to further demonstrate the distinctiveness of the subscales. The results demonstrated good model fit, χ2 (5, N = 500) = 16.86, p < .001, CFI = .98, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04."
## [476] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA examined the 33 initial items using the community sample (n = 206), with the hypothesis that the items would load onto 2 factors (Personalized and Socialized nPower). Contrary to the hypothesis, the scree plot showed a 3-factor solution that accounted for 49.4% of the variance after rotation. Seven Personalized nPower and 8 Socialized nPower items were subsequently removed, due to high cross-loadings or loading onto the incorrect factor. A second EFA for the remaining items, showed 2 factors that accounted for 50.47% of the variance after rotation. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted using the student sample (n = 130) to test both a 2-factor and a 1-factor solution. The results showed the 2-factor solution, which specified that the latent variables were correlated, was adequate according to model fit conventions: χ²(19) = 39.15, p = .004, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .08; by contrast, the 1-factor solution showed poor model fit."
## [477] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The three-factor structure originally proposed and confirmed by Hooper et al. (2011) was used as the basis for the CFA analysis. Results indicate that the three-factor structure was a poor fit for the PI-SV, chi-square(209, N = 279) = 1,195.95, p < .001; root-mean-square error of approximation = .13; goodness-of-fit index = .71. Because of the poor fit, EFA was conducted. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Following the removal of several items (due to low and complex loadings), three distinct factors were produced. The resultant three interpretable rotated components explained 50.4% of the total variance."
## [478] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA results clearly supported a one-factor solution in the undergraduate sample (n = 386; first eigenvalue = 6.36, all other values < 1) and the clinical sample (n = 400; first eigenvalue = 5.83, all other values < 1), explaining 63.6% and 58.3% of the variance, respectively. The results were consistent with research using the state version (McEvoy et al., 2010)."
## [479] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The goodness of fit indices of the model with two correlated factors in Study 1 was good: χ²(134) = 153.30 (p = .122), CFI = .98, TLI = .98, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .02 (p = 1.00). The goodness of fit indices of the model with two correlated factors was also good in the overall sample: χ²(134) = 325.32 (p < .001), CFI = .97, TLI = .97, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .03 (p = 1.00); the two factors correlated at ρ = .42 (p < .01). Measurement Invariance: Using χ²-difference tests and ΔRMSEA, the invariance of slopes and thresholds were confirmed when comparing the development sample (N = 348) with the other samples (N = 1,219; Δχ² = 18.13, Δdf = 16, p = .317, ΔRMSEA < .01) and when comparing women (N = 905) and men (N = 604, Δχ² = 20.94, Δdf = 16, p = .181, ΔRMSEA < .01)."
## [480] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The respecified 12-item three-factor correlated model meaningfully improved the fit to data: χ²(N=282, df = 50) = 170.62, p<.001; χ²/df = 3.41; CFI = .952; IFI = .953; SRMR = .059; RMSEA = .093 (90% CI = .078–.108). Measurement Invariance: The results of multi-group analysis revealed measurement invariance of the 12-item three-factor correlated model across gender."
## [481] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model satisfactorily fit the data (n = 2533, RMSEA = .071 [90% confidence interval = .068, .075], SRMR = .039, CFI = .98, GFI = .94), also from the comparison with the original validation data of the instrument (n=31,966, RMSEA = .064 [90% confidence interval = .063, .065], SRMR = .031, CFI = .97, GFI = .96)."
## [482] "Principal Component Analysis: The best eight items for each dimension were selected using principal component analyses (PCA) and extension factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results confirmed that the 6-factor model had sufficient fit indices, RMSEA = .06; 90% CI [.05, .06]; CFI = .88, ML χ²(1,065, N = 1,058) = 4,514.16, p < .001. Similar results were observed for the HEXACO-MSI-Obs. Results confirmed that the 6-factor model had adequate fit indices, RMSEA = .051 90% CI [.049, .053]; CFI = .869, ML χ²(1,065, N = 1,058) = 3,637.63, p < .001. Measurement Invariance: The results showed a full metric invariance across random groups, gender, and classes."
## [483] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA in the framework of structural equation modeling was used. The unconstrained model, chi-square(36, N = 88) = 70.32, p < .001, CFI = .980, TLI = .960, RMSEA = .048, 90% confidence interval (CI) of RMSEA (.031, .064), and the constrained model, chi-square(44, N = 88) = 80.77, p < .001, CFI = .979, TLI = .965, RMSEA = .045, 90% CI of RMSEA (.029, .060), both fit the data well. Moreover, the fit of the constrained model did not differ from that of the unconstrained model, chi-square(8, N = 88) = 10.45, ns, reflecting the equivalence of the scales across the two countries. Measurement invariance: Despite this perfect fit, the constrained model, Δchi-square(4, N = 28) = 5.82, ns, CFI = .997, TLI = .985, RMSEA = .033, 90% CI of RMSEA (.000, .086), fit the data well and did not differ from that of the unconstrained model, Δchi-square(4) = 5.82, ns, indicating measurement equivalence in terms of the factor loadings and intercept."
## [484] "Measurement Invariance: Measurement invariance analyses were conducted using CFA with two-group nested SEM to ensure valid comparisons between China and the United States (e.g., Chen, 2008; Little, 1997). Comparison of the configural and metric model, chi-square (57, N = 396) = 94.00, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06, indicated metric invariance as the chi-square differences in fit were less than .01. The unconstrained model for the success-oriented responses measure fit adequately, chi-square (48, N = 396) = 89.98, CFI = .97, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .07, indicating configural invariance. The differences in fit between the configural and metric model, were less than .01, indicating metric invariance. However, the differences in fit between the metric and scalar model were greater than .015. After freeing the intercepts of 4 items, results yielded differences in fit less than .01, chi-square (62, N = 396) = 130.74, CFI = .95, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .08."
## [485] "Measurement Invariance: The unconstrained model for the Self-Improvement Goals measure fit adequately, chi-square (36, N = 395) = 63.91, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .06, indicating configural invariance. The differences in fit between the configural and metric model, were less than .01, indicating metric invariance. When the two items that affected model fit the most were freed, the differences in fit between the metric and scalar model, were less than .01, indicating partial scalar invariance. The unconstrained model for the Self-Worth Goals measure also fit adequately, chi-square (12, N = 395) = 25.03, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .07, indicating configural invariance. When the factor loadings of the three items that contributed most to noninvariance were unconstrained, the differences in fit were less than .01. The differences in fit of the partial scalar model, chi-square(16, N = 395) = 33.28, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .07, from the partial metric model were less than .01."
## [486] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Exploratory factor analyses indicated that the scale items loaded onto two separate factors (TBI accounted for 25% of the variance in responses, and TBG accounted for 16% of the variance). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The one-factor model did not fit the data well (goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .88, adjusted goodness-of-fit index [AGFI] = .83, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .10, 90% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.09, 0.10), whereas the two-factor model fit significantly better (GFI = .95, AGFI = .93, RMSEA = .057, 90% CIs = 0.05, 0.06), Δχ²(1, N = 1251) = 492.41, p < .001"
## [487] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA results initially suggested poor model fit to the data, χ2 (681, N = 211) = 1686.05, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.86. Inspection of the correlation matrix indicated that the Norms Against Youth Substance Use measure appeared to be multidimensional; that is, it could be split into two correlated factors. A subsequent CFA, with the two sets of items indicating two correlated factors, demonstrated substantially improved model fit, χ2 (674, N = 211) = 1172.41, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93. The authors then tested a higher order molar readiness factor, composed of eight factors—six original measures and the two new factors derived from the Norms Against Youth Substance Use measure. The higher order factor model had marginal fit, χ2 (694, N = 211) = 1208.06, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93."
## [488] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A three-level CFA examined the within-client, within-therapist, and between-therapist factor structure for the five HSM items (Hill & Kellems, 2002) that were used to develop the TES. The results showed the goodness-of-fit indicators demonstrating adequate fit with the data, χ² (N = 4,630 sessions) = 186.81, p < .001, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05, with the exception of the significant chi square statistic. The SRMR values were also acceptable: .02 for the within-client model, .03 for the within-therapist model, and .06 for the between-therapist model. Moreover, all item loadings were significant."
## [489] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: PCA extracted two factors for 57% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: This analysis yielded an RMSEA of .11, an SRMR of .07, and a CFI of .88, χ²(89, N = 183) = 248.76, which represented a significantly better fit, Δχ²(1, N = 181) = 368.77, p < .001, than that of the single factor model. However, because this model still did not suggest a good model fit, we tested a third model that was identical to the second model but also included two uncorrelated method factors (for positively and negatively worded items). This third model, χ²(74, N = 183) = 171.90, represented a good fit, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .07, and CFI = .93, suggesting that method factors may, indeed, be present."
## [490] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal axis factor extraction and varimax rotation found that all 7 of the remaining items loaded on a single factor that accounted for 74.20% of the explained variance; However, 2 items had item loadings below .70, necessitating further analysis. After 2 additional EFAs, which removed the 2 lowest loading items, the results demonstrated that all 5 remaining items loaded on a single factor that accounted for 82.76% of the explained variance, with all item loadings being above .70 (ranging from .75–.95). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted using a sample of participants (n = 825). The results demonstrated acceptable fit: Chi square (χ²) = 59.65, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .99, and standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = .01; Hu and Bentler (1999)."
## [491] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA revealed a 2-factor solution, representing physical power and social power. The item “really smart” was reworded to “really clever” because the factor loading was less than 0.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Following item removal, model fit was deemed adequate (n = 127: normed chi-square =1.2, RMSEA = .04 [90% CI = .00 to .091], CF1 = .993). The social factor included constructs of group and peer valued characteristics. Measurement Invariance: Invariance of the mean and covariance structures was demonstrated across gender as evidenced by a non-significant corrected Chi-square between the nested model and the comparison model at each specified level of the model (p > .05). Invariance of the mean and covariance structures was likewise demonstrated between grade at school (Grade 4, and Grades 5–6) as evidenced by a non-significant corrected Chi-square between the nested model and the comparison model at each specified level of the model (p > .05)"
## [492] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final CFA results for the overall measurement-model fit were acceptable, Chi-squared(344, N = 968) = 962.33, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.043 (90 percent C.I. = 0.04; 0.05); SRMR= 0.045."
## [493] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A review of the four a priori scales (now, subscales) demonstrated good fit: χ² (293, n = 661) = 984.710, p<.001; comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.00; non-normed fit index (NNFI) =1.03; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .060 (CI90 = .056–.064). Good fit was also demonstrated in the evaluation of an alternative 3-factor model. However, a χ²-difference test (Steiger, Shapiro, & Browne, 1985) showed the 4-factor model representing a better fit for the data than the alternative 3-factor model. Measurement Invariance: Across healthy and ill groups, tests for invariance (configural, loadng, and strong invariance) all demonstrated that the 4-factor structure of the AESC is invariant, and can be meaningfully compared across the healthy and cancer groups."
## [494] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA results indicated that the five-factor structure with two controlled and three autonomous motivation latent factors yielded an acceptable model fit: (chi-square [160, N = 226] = 376.04, p < .001), CFI = .92, TLI = .90, SRMR = .066, RMSEA = .086."
## [495] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on the first half of the sample (n = 477) using the principal factor method of extraction. The scree plot suggested a single-factor solution while parallel analysis suggested 6 or more factors. The pattern matrix showed that the third through sixth factors were only loading 2 variables each. After testing 1-, 2-, and 3-factor solutions, the authors opted for a single-factor solution. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on the second half of the sample (n = 466), with the results supporting a single-factor model: χ²(df) (104) = 475.88; p < 0.001."
## [496] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Goodness-of-fit indices (N = 249): chi-square 260 = 392.32 (p-value < 0.001); NFI = 0.89; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96; RMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.05."
## [497] "Exploratory factor analysis: For the EFA, several indicators suggested that the 4-factor model was optimal. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA using SEM was used removing any item that cross-loaded on two factors or items that had standardized factor loading coefficients below .45 (items 4, 15, and 17) (Bentler & Wu, 1993). The final model with four factors was comprised of 17 items and showed a moderate fit: chi-square(106, N=122)=156.10, p=.001, CFI=.90; RMSEA=.062, 90%C.I.= .040$.082, p=.17. Measurement invariance: Model fit across the two ethnic groups evidenced partial strong factorial invariance, ΔCFI=.007, model fit: chi-square(244)=345.86, p < .001, CFI=.903; RMSEA=.059, SRMR=.087."
## [498] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA via principal component analysis (PCA) with direct oblimin rotation assessed the items in a sample of Tehran, Iran residents (n = 2,051). The scree plot showed a 6-factor solution that explained 58.36% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed the items in a different sample of Tehran, Iran residents (n = 2,049) via the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The results showed SRMR and the RMSEA values of 0.03 and 0.04, respectively, suggesting that the latent and the measurement models were acceptable. However, the CFI and the TLI values of 0.94 and 0.92, respectively, were just below acceptable parameters. But, overall, the results indicated that the fit indices were acceptable."
## [499] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was used to assess 45 items using a randomly split in half of the sample (n = 367; 66% female). The results revealed four factors, with all items loading at ≥ .40. Collectively, the factors accounted for 55.54% of the variance, and were all extracted with eigenvalues >1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed a second randomly split in half of the sample (n = 361; 59% female). The results indicated that the four-factor structure structure is supported by multiple fit indices: chi-square/d.f. = 1.99 (chi-square = 1741.657, d.f. = 874, P < .001), GFI = .83, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05. Additionally, the CFA showed that all items in the HBM subscales, except for 3 items in the Susceptibility subscale, had factor loadings > .40, which indicated good construct validity (Nunnally, 1978)."
## [500] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Findings from two CFAs found that the 25-item, 5-factor model exhibited adequate fit: (Study 1) SB χ2(974, N = 433) = 2,284.103, p < .001, CFI = .908, SRMR = 0.046, and RMSEA = .052, 90% CI = [.048, .057]. The Δχ2 was significant (p < .001), suggesting that the five-factor model was the superior model. Measurement Invariance: The five-factor model had adequate fit for college women and men, suggesting configural invariance or similarity in the subscales comprising the measure across gender. However, the model fit indices were less adequate for men, suggesting that the proposed model may be functioning differently for men and women. Given the measure did not demonstrate metric invariance across the gendered groups, analysis of scalar invariance was not conducted."
## [501] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: PCA explained 31% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: In the test sample results, all the statistics showed a good fit: chi-square(44, N = 222) = 55.966, p = .061, chi-square/gl = 55.966/44 = 1.34, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, 90%CI [0.00, 0.06], p = .73."
## [502] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted on a subsample of participants (n = 400). Parallel analysis (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014) suggested a single dimension. After applying the fixed EFA to one factor, all the items were found to be adequate, with a RMSEA value of 0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.0595 to 0.0741) and a GFI index of 0.99 (95% CI = 0.984 to 0.990) (> 0.95; Tanaka & Huba, 1989). 1989). The variance explained by this single factor was 43.90%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted on a second subsample of participants (n = 407). The goodness of fit indicies were above 0.90, indicating good fit (MacCallum & Austin, 2000): nonnormed fit index (NNFI = 0.92), the comparative fit index (CFI = 0.94), the incremental and the McDonald's fit indices (IFI = 0.94 and MFI = 0.94, respectively)."
## [503] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Six EFAs were used to assess the initial 62 items, extracting from 7 to 12 factors. Across different EFAs, 8 intercorrelated factors became more robust and well-defined, explaining 78.7% of the variance. Four motives (i.e., achievement-challenge, conformity, violent catharsis, and arousal) were not well identified in the 12-factor solution, but were more effectively distributed in the 8-factor solution, which became the most representative of recurrent gaming motives. An EFA in the adolescent sample (n = 407) replicated the 8-factor solution, with an explained variance of 78.5%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted to test the VMQ's 8-factor model. The results demonstrated a good model fit (S−Bχ² = 330.13, df = 224, p < .001; S−Bχ²/df = 1.47; CFI = .97; IFI = .97; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .04); factor loadings ranged from .62 to .95, with the 8-factor model explaining 81.9% of the variance."
## [504] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a model with an unacceptable model fit [Model fit: Chi-squared(179, n = 231) = 613.033 (p < 0.001), TLI = 0.74, IFI = 0.79, CFI = 0.78, RMSEA = 0.11 (90%CI = 0.10–0.12, PCLOSE = 0.00), SRMR = 0.06] including four items with low factor loadings between 0.188 and 0.487. Principal Component Analysis: After the deletion of problematic items, a final PCA with 19 items revealed three main components with eigenvalues > 1, which explained 61.12% of variance. No item loaded on more than one component."
## [505] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Chi-square (chisquare = 28.53 (p > .05), degrees of freedom = 28 and N = 219. Furthermore, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.009 [LO 90 = 0.000 and HI = 0.053] and SRMR = 0.074)."
## [506] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After the deletion of three items assessing emotion, a model with seven first-order factors accounting for commonality among the remaining 21 items fit the data well, χ²(168, N= 400) = 345.40, p < .001, CFI = .953, SRMR= .045, RMSEA = .051 (CLs = .044, .059). The fit of a second-order model in which the seven first-order factors were influenced by a single second-order factor was promising, χ²(181, N= 303) = 473.59, p < .001, CFI = .859, SRMR= .076, RMSEA = .073 (CLs = .065, .081), but did not meet the cutoff for CFI. It also provided a poorer account of the data than the first-order model, χ²(14) = 98.30, p < .001, thereby confirming the previous finding."
## [507] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA results indicated from three to six factors for the initial 31 items (n = 375). The scree plot supported the three-factor solution, which was selected for parsimony. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using robust maximum likelihood estimation with Geomin, was conducted to test both one- and three-factor models (n = 375). Below standard fit was seen for the one-factor model and only slightly improved fit for the three-factor model. Measurement Invariance: Multiple indicator, multiple cause (MIMIC) structural equation models tested gender and age influence on latent factors and outcome variables (n = 750). For age, older adults and emerging adults scored higher than expected at given factors scores; for gender, females scored lower than expected relative to males on using substances to take reduce pressures on \"making choices about the future\"; but, females scored higher than males on substance use due to experiencing \"a lot of changes recently.\""
## [508] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The D statistic comparing the five- and four-scale model fits was significant, χ²(3, N = 191) 21.44, p >.01, indicating that the more parsimonious four-scale model better represented the latent construct of consequences."
## [509] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A bi-factor measurement model was estimated via CFA. The bifactor model assumes each of the 15 Self-concept Focus items is influenced by a general factor that, in turn, influences all 15 items, and a group factor corresponding to the event to which it refers. The general factor corresponds to the underlying concept of Self-concept Focus, which is a disposition to make events central to one's identity and life story. The results showed the model having good fit to the data: χ² (N= 400, df = 75) = 181.69, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06, SRMR= .05. Additionally, Omega hierarchical (ωh) indexes displayed a ω value of .70, indicating that about 70% of the variance in Self-concept Focus scale scores can be attributed to a general factor that transcends specific events."
## [510] "Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis): The results demonstrated an adequate fit to the sample data (Chi-squared [1, N = 415] = 215.99, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI ) = .969, Tucker-Lewis non-normed fit index (TLI) = .939, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = .319 [90% confidence interval (CI) = .283, .356], p < .001) and suggested evidence for unidimensionality."
## [511] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Cattell’s scree criterion and the principle of the simple structure indicated that one factor was optimal, accounting for 28.2% of the variance, and with all 11 pairs loading over .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) – sufficient for a scale so heterogeneous content-wise, as noted by the authors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After fitting a covariance between two item pairs, the improved model fitted the data well (Chi-squared[43, N = 167] = 53.050, p = .140; CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.04 (90% CI [.00, .07]), close fit test nonsignificant [p = .720])."
## [512] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale had a single factor structure that explained 31% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 5.28. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The goodness of fit indices of the scale were as follows: χ²(61, N = 369) = $249.32, χ²/df = 3.00, GFI = .90, SRMR = .060, RMSEA= .070."
## [513] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA with principal axis factoring initially extracted a 4-factor solution. However, extensive changes to the instrument led to a second EFA on new data from a sample of early-career teachers (n = 203), revealing a 3-factor solution. Further EFAs due to additional changes again resulted in a 4-factor solution, which was retained. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was used to assess a measurement model, with initial results showing only marginally acceptable fit to the data: Chi-square (113) = 339.92, p < 0.001; CFI = .90, RMSEA = .053 (CI .047 to .006), and SRMR = .048. Measurement Model: Using half of a randomly split sample (n = 418), further CFA iterations allowed for error covariance between items two and five, resulting in a slightly improved model: Chi-square (112) = 294.31, p < .001; CFI = .92, RMSEA = .048 (CI .041 to .054), SRMR = .046; the results were sufficient in demonstrating acceptable model fit for a 4-factor, 17-item instrument."
## [514] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The single-factor solution accounted for 63.07% of the total variance of initial eigenvalues. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit statistics for this CFA model were chi-square(9, N = 282) = 16.08, p = .06, CFI = .982, SRMR = .033, and RMSEA = .053 (90% CI [.000–.094])."
## [515] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The EFA of the calibration subsample (n = 230) resulted in a one factor solution in the split-sample calibration analysis, including all of the original 10 items, which accounted for 47.79% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA was run to further validate the factor structure of the Scale of ESE using the validation subsample (n = 217). The results showed that the one-factor model, including modifications based on post hoc analysis provides, a statistically significantly improved fit to the data: chi-square = 74.775, CFI = .954, GFI = .938, RMSEA = .079, TLI = .935, Δ chi-square (3) = 50.428, p < .001)."
## [516] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Two EFAs were conducted on the initial 39 items using a snowball sample of adult volunteers (n = 119). The results for the first EFA showed a one-factor solution that had an eigenvalue of 5.99 and explained 37.4% of the variance. The second EFA, using maximum likelihood extraction with promax rotation and Kaiser normalization, resulted in a four-factor solution that explained 61.9% of the variance, with most items loading on their intended factor. The four-factor solution was selected as the preferred solution, with the 16 best performing items distributed among them. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA assessed the four-factor solution using a random stratification sample of adult volunteers (n = 1,234; 70.8% female). The results showed mostly acceptable goodness-of-fit indices: chi-square = 623.1; Df = 98; p = 0.001; CFI = 0.91; NFI = 0.89; RFI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.08."
## [517] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA results showed that a six-factor DAPS/C-DAPS combined model fit better than a three-factor stand-alone C-DAPS model {six-factor: SBS-Chi-Squared (N = 459, df = 967) = 2499.73, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .06, SRMR =.08}, demonstrating that partner-oriented and child-oriented constructs are independent."
## [518] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA, using direct oblim rotation, was conducted on the 10 items resulting from expert panel analysis. One factor was extracted that explained 64.05% of variance and had an eigenvalue of 6.41.Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted using the first-wave sample (n = 346). The results showed poor fit for the 10 items. After the removal of two items, adequate fit was demonstrated: chi-square (20) = 68.13, p < .001; chi-square/df = 3.41, RMSEA = .08; CFI = .96; SRMR = .04."
## [519] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA verified a three-dimensional model in both the training and test samples (n = 106 for each sample). CFA results for the training sample were: chi-square = 17.76; df = 6; p < .01; RMSEA = .14; 9% CI = .065 - .211; CFI = .96; NFI = .9; SRMR = .04. Cross-validation with the test sample showed the following CFA results: chi-square = 14.53; df = 6; p < .05; RMSEA = .12; 95% CI = .039 - .193; CFI = .98; NFI = .96; SRMR = .04."
## [520] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Initially, EFA extracted three factors. Since the internal reliability was stronger when all items were considered as one scale than for each factor separately, and since each factor was positively correlated with the others, the three factors were combined to make a stronger unidimensional scale. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The three-factor model displayed poor fit according to the measured indices, χ²(27, N = 178) = 265.279, p < .001, χ²/df = 9.83, CFI = .69, NFI = .67, GFI = .76, RMSEA = .223, whilst the unidimensional model displayed better fit, χ²(27, N = 178) = 106.357, p <.001, χ²/df = 3.939, CFI = .90, NFI = .87, GFI = .87, RMSEA = .129. Measurement Invariance: ΔCFI, ΔSRMR, ΔRMSEA and were within thresholds, which demonstrates metric and scalar invariance across ages."
## [521] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA suggested at least two distinct factors (activity avoidance and cogniphobia). Item Response Theory: Initial fit to the Rasch model was adequate, with one misfitting item. The model was not improved after removing the misfitting item. Best fit to the unidimensional Rasch model was achieved after items were combined into three super items based on exploratory factor analysis and retaining the misfitting item 𝜒²(6, n = 159) = 2.1, p = 0.06)."
## [522] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA yielded a single factor: χ2(39, N = 220) = 110.93; CFI = .95; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .092."
## [523] "Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For girls, the 3-factor solution that was suggested by EFA was tested and demonstrated close fit (relative chi-square = 2.10, RMSEA = .074, CFI = .945, TLI = .934, SRMR = .062). For boys, the 2-factor solution that was suggested by EFA was tested by CFA and emerged close fit (relative chi-square = 1.700, RMSEA = .052, CFI = .976, TLI = .962, SRMR = .041). For the common items across male and female versions of the measure, the model that had close fit for the entire (boys and girls together, n = 1435) sample suggested the following: relative chi-square = 3.97, RMSEA = .045, CFI = .982, TLI = 0.971, SRMR = 0.025. Measurement Invariance: The gender neutral measure was invariant with respect to gender (all direct effects of gender on the items were non-significant). Therefore, the total scores of the common items version can be compared between girls and boys without measurement bias."
## [524] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: PAF revealed a 5-facator solution with the first factor accounting for 38.14% of the variance. All the relationships were significant at the p < .001 level: chi-square (165, n = 838) = 205.31, p < .05, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.017 (90% CI [0.008, 0.024]), SRMR = 0.072. The five-factor model with correlated factors showed an equivalent fit to the second order five-factor solution [chi-square (160, n = 838) = 202.18, p < .05, NNFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.916, RMSEA = 0.018 (90% CI [0.009, 0.025]), SRMR = 0.069]."
## [525] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final, four-factor model with modification indices showed acceptable fit indices (Chi-squared (80, N = 372) = 235.24, p < .001, Chi-squared/df = 2.94, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.051, RMSEA = 0.072)."
## [526] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The 3-factor model with modification indices showed acceptable fit indices (Chi-squared(197, N = 360) = 443.79, p < .001, Chi-squared/df = 2.25, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.93, SRMR = .061, RMSEA = .059)."
## [527] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The CFA model achieved excellent data-model fit (CFI = .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .06 (90% C.I.: .057-.070); SRMR = .06; chi-square = 399.763 (p< .001); df = 122, chi-square/df = 3.28; n = 567)."
## [528] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The four-factor structure accounted for 57% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model quality was acceptable to good for the 4-factor structure (χ2(164, n = 177) = 309.82; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 1.67; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96). Also the model fit of the second-order model was acceptable to good (χ2(166, n = 81) = 310.58; p < 0.001; χ2/df = 0.49; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96)."
## [529] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results reflect, in accordance with the hypothesis, indicated that this model fits the data. The satisfaction criteria concerning all the indicators have been achieved, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .051, 90% CIs [.042; .060], SRMR = .033, despite a significant chi-square, χ2 (120, N = 273) = 205.47, p = .001."
## [530] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA with oblique rotation identified a 4-factorial model with a slightly different assignment of the items on the four factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The factor structure found could be in of the sample halved for cross-validation exploratory replicated (N = 148) and then confirmatory (N = 147) can be confirmed (CFI = .90; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .07)."
## [531] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: When testing a higher order model, (e.g., the four factors of first order converging on a second order factor called frustration), the fit indices of this model were slightly worse, although acceptable: χ²(115. N = 271) = 227.48, p < .001; χ²/df = 1.98; IFC = .97; IFI = .97; RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = .05-.07); SRMR = .04. All standardized regression weights were significant (p < .001), being .86 for competition, .93 for autonomy, .90 for relationship with others and .55 for novelty. Measurement Invariance: #e structure of both models was invariant with respect to gender."
## [532] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The six-factor structure explained 61.43% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The goodness of fit indices were as follows for the 6-factor solution: Chi-squared (130, n = 3.080) = 467.50, p <.001. Also, the quotient Chi-squared/df yielded a value of 3.59, considered to be an acceptable level of adjustment."
## [533] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An eight-factor solution appeared optimal relative to the item and factor retention criteria. The eight factors contained between four and 16 items each and accounted for 62% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A measurement model in which each item was fixed to load on its corresponding factor from the exploratory factor analysis yielded adequate fit on the SRMR = .06 and RMSEA = .05, 90% CI [.04, .05] indices, though CFI (.91) was < .95; Satorra–Bentler (S–B) χ2 (1349, N = 277) = 2134.75, p < .001."
## [534] "Confirmatory factor analysis: The CFA with a one-factor model indicated a good fit to the DAR-5-F data despite the large sample size (GFI = .996, AGFI = .988, TLI (rho2) = .995, CFI = .997, RMSEA = .026, and PCLOSE = .862). This single-factor solution was retested on the high-trauma group. The model was supported with traditional (chi-square(5, N = 406) = 3.36; p = .644) and more robust fit statistics (GFI = .997, AGFI = .990, TLI (rho2) = 1.006, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, and PCLOSE = .924)."
## [535] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFAs revealed a three correlated factor structure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A model consisting of 12 items and three correlated factors showed adequate goodness-of-fit indexes, χ²(51, n = 898) = 66.22, p = .07 (CFI = .984; RMSEA = .026, 90% CI = [.000, .042]). Measurement Invariance: The model structure was invariant across participants’ gender."
## [536] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final specification of the one-factor solution substantially improved the fit of the model to the data: Chi-squared (34, N = 188) = 156.863, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.100, SRMR = 0.069."
## [537] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA with oblimin rotation extracted five factors explaining a total variance of 81.51%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA of the 18 items showed an adequate fit of the model: ((𝜒² (46, N = 444) = 761.80, p = .000; 𝜒²/d.f. = 6.09; CFI = .92; TLI = .90; IFI = .92; SRMR = .05)."
## [538] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The results of Horn’s parallel analysis suggested a one factor solution, with an accounted variance of 59.99%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The one-factor model comprising of eight frequency and eight intensity item-symptoms obtained a poor fit with S-B𝜒² (96, N = 523) = 560.801, p < .001, CFI = .824, TLI = .780, RMSEA = .096 (90% CI = .089 to .104). The two-factor model where eight frequency item-symptoms were loaded to a factor and eight intensity-symptoms were loaded to another factor achieved excellent fit, with S-B𝜒² (95, N = 523) = 191.408, p < .001, CFI = .963, TLI = .954, RMSEA = .044 (90% CI = .035 to .053). Measurement Invariance: Constraining factor loadings to be equal across intensity and frequency (metric invariance), the results yielded non-invariance of the response formats. Further, constraints employed to item-intercepts also showed non-invariance across the formats."
## [539] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Results from confirmatory factor analyses indicated the fit statistics met the criteria for a good fitting model (χ²(125, N = 401) = 245.54, p < .001, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, SRMR= .05, RMSEA = .049, 90% CI = .040–058). Gender Invariance: The FRTA+R scale was invariant across gender at the configural (ΔCFI = −.006, ΔRMSEA = .004), metric (ΔCFI = −.004, ΔRMSEA = .000) and scalar (ΔCFI = −.003, ΔRMSEA = .001) levels."
## [540] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results demonstrate that the 3-factor model reveals significant results in both samples in terms of goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. For university students, the 3-factor solution presented adequate fit, χ²(103, N = 478) = 406.015, p = .000. For older adults, The 3-factor solution presented adequate fit, χ²(103, N = 166) = 246.501, p = .000."
## [541] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was used to assess the initial 65 items in a split sample of participants (n = 430). The results revealed in a five-factor solution that corresponded with the five dimensions of unidimensional scales; A total of 40 of the 65 items that loaded on the five subscales were retained. In a second-order EFA of the remaining 40 items, all five factors identified in the first-order analysis loaded on one super factor. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The second half of the sample (n = 431) was used to conduct CFA. Overall, the CFA results, inclusive of comparative and absolute fit indices, showed adequate to good fit between the models and the data for subscales and the total scale."
## [542] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: In the first sample, three factors were identified using exploratory factor analysis accounting for 55% of the total variance. In the second sample, new items were added and the validity of the questionnaire was investigated in a two-step process by splitting the sample into two random sub-samples. In the first random split-half (N = 165) using exploratory factor analysis, two factors were identified accounting for 56% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: In the second random split-half (N = 152), the fit of the two-factor structure was investigated using exploratory factor analysis conducted within the confirmatory factor analysis framework. The model fit was acceptable (CFI = .914; TLI = .901; RMSEA = .077; SRMR = .069). The modification indices revealed that deleting one item and reassigning an item under another factor would improve the fit of the model (CFI = .958; TLI = .951; RMSEA = .055; SRMR = .055)."
## [543] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted with part of the sample (Group 1; n = 433), with results revealing a 3-factor solution that explained 76.0% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was conducted with the second part of the sample (Group 2; n = 433), with results revealing that the 3-factor model adequately reproduced the data: MLR chi-square = 37.962, MLR chi-square/df = 1.582; CFI = .982; RMSEA = .037; 90% CI [.010–.058]; SRMR = .041. Measurement Invariance: For the sample (n = 866), invariance was tested across education level (high school vs. bachelor's or beyond) and across age (less than 30 years vs. 30 years and more). The results showed evidence of invariance for both education level and age. Moreover, good fit was produced for configural invariance, factor loading invariance, intercept invariance, and latent factor mean invariance."
## [544] "Confirmatory factor analysis, A third model (M3) tested the factor structure of a scale composed of 13 items and 3 factors (i.e., emotional avoidance, sexual curiosity, and excitement seeking and sexual pleasure, composed of items 11, 7, 9, and 14). This model presented an excellent overall fit, according to Hu & Bentler (1999), S-T chi-square (59, N=211) = 76.91, p < .001, chi-square/df = 1.3, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .04. The three factors were significantly and positively interrelated, with coefficients of association over .50. Nonrobust indicators of model fit also showed positive results, chi-square(59, N=211) = 156.09, p = .059, chi-square/df = 2.65, CFI = .956, RMSEA = .09."
## [545] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA was conducted to choose the optimal number of factors and items from an analytic subsample (n = 172). For all three construct dimensions (i.e., confidence, skills, and stress), EFAs were conducted separately testing 1-, 2-, and 3-factor solutions but not finding consensus with any of them, largely due to issues observed with Item 14. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A cross-validation sample (n = 189) was used to compare the 1- and 2-factor solutions. Notably, the 1-factor solution showed adequate fit: chi-square (350) = 736.93, p < .00, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .96, TLI = .96. After removing Item 14, due to it having very high residual variance (.84), the 2-factor solution showed comparably good fit: chi-square (274) = 615.20, p < .00, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .96, TLI = .95. However, due to lack of theoretical grounds, the authors ultimately decided to retain the 1-factor, 27-item measure."
## [546] "Principal Component Analysis: PCA was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using a student sample (n = 733) to assess the 27 remaining items that resulted from item-item correlations. While initial analysis revealed 9 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, the scree-plot analysis showed a clear break after the third component. Moreover, parallel analysis identified only 3 factors. An additional EFA, using a much larger sample, confirmed the 3-factor structure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA, using a larger sample from across the general public in the UK and Nigeria (n = 2,017), was conducted to reduce the number of items in order to arrive at a final model. Items were removed if they had multiple error term modification indices >10. Ultimately, the final model had 15 items that loaded distinctly and clearly on 3 factors. Model fit was acceptable, suggesting that the model fitted the data well (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999)."
## [547] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated that the data displayed a similar structure for perceptions about interest and achievement. One factor with eigenvalues of 1.0 or higher was extracted. Together, they accounted for 31.98% of the variance for interest section, 34.04% of the variance for achievement section and 47.10% of the variance for frequency section which are accepted as tolerable (Pituch & Stevens, 2016). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Goodness of fit indices were in the acceptable range: χ²(78, N =314) = 215.794, χ²/df = 2.77, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06 for the interest section, as χ²(79, N =314) = 196.832, χ²/df = 2.49, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06 for the achievement section, and as χ²(81, N = 314) = 231.605, χ²/df = 2.85, NFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06 for the frequency section."
## [548] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: PCA revealed a 2-factor solution explaining 67.6% of the total variance. Three covariance links between statements strongly intercorrelated on the same factor were added to the initial model following the proposals made by the AMOS software to improve fit indices. Once these changes were made, the final model demonstrated a satisfactory adjustment: chi-square(61, N = 295) = 165.46, p = 0,000; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08 (0.06, 0.09); SRMR = 0.05."
## [549] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The number of items and final factors was determined based on to the fulfillment that the eigenvalues should be greater than 1, and the factors had to have a minimum of 3 items. Item 12 was eliminated. The Parental subscale consists of 4 subscales. The Family adjustment subscale consists of 2 factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Parental consistency factor did not reach the minimum required to consider the coefficient H acceptable and removed from the measurement model of the Parental Adjustment subscale. The new model of subscale, without said factor, obtained good fit data: c2(N = 51) = 226.41; p < .001; GFI = .99; TLI = .95; CFI = .96; NFI = .95; RMSEA = .04[.03, - .04]; SRMR = .036. Measurement Invariance: Following the criterion of Cheung and Rensvold (2002), the difference between the two models did not exceed the value of .01 in any of the two PAFAS subscales, so it is concluded that there is homogeneity or invariance in the measurement model."
## [550] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Exploratory factor analyses with a semi-random split-half subsample (n = 377) indicated that BAS-2 scores reduced to a single dimension with all 10 items. This factor structure was equivalent across women and men. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a second split-half subsample (n = 235) showed the 1-dimensional factor structure had adequate fit following one modification—SB𝜒²(34) = 57.50, SB𝜒² normed = 1.69, robust RMSEA = .080 (90 % CI = .042-.115), SRMR = .05, robust CFI = .966, robust TLI = .955. Measurement Invariance: Multi-group CFA showed that the model was invariant across sex (i.e., sex invariance at the configural, metric, and scalar levels was established)."
## [551] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Due to lack of interpretability, cross-loadings, and unstable factors, two- and six-factor solutions were excluded from subsequent analyses. A four-factor solution (with promax rotation) fit the data best, but only explained 49% of the variance (after the deletion of 3 items from the original scale). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A subsequent CFA of the integrated FFMQ + Observing Scale initially evidenced poor fit: χ2 (1214, N = 242) = 2584.414, p<0.001, CFI=0.79, TLI=0.78, RMSEA =0.071 (90% CI = [0.07–0.08]), and SRMR = 0.081. Modification indices (MIs) suggested improved model fit by correlating error variances for the following item pairs: FMI items 3 and 7 (Internal Body Observing), PHLMS item 5 and FFMQ item 6 (External Body Observing), and FFMQ items 34 and 38 (Acting with Awareness). For the final model, all items loaded significantly onto their respective factors (ps<0.001)."
## [552] "Exploratory structural equation modelling: Results indicated a 4-factor solution: χ2 = 467.590*, p < .001, N = 359, df = 272, CFI = .953, TLI = .934, RMSEA = .045, SRMR = .030."
## [553] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The original proposed second-order latent factor with seven first-order latent factors data fit was acceptable for both samples: Sample 1 (Brazil) (χ2(97) = 479.314; χ2/df = 4.94, p < .001; n = 597; CFI = .992; NFI = .990; TLI = .990; SRMR = .063; RMSEA = .081; P(rmsea) ≤ .05) < .001, 90% CI].074; .089[), and Sample 2 (Portugal) (χ2(97) = 673.253; χ2/df= 6.94, p < .001; n = 566; CFI = .989; NFI = .987; TLI = .987; SRMR = .077; RMSEA = .103; P(rmsea) ≤ .05) < .001, 90% CI].095; .110[). Measurement Invariance: The results indicate that measurement invariance was achieved across the country and gender."
## [554] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The initial result of the analysis was a pattern matrix initially consisting of 7 factors with eigenvalues >1 that accounted for 76.917% of the variance. Thirty-nine items were dropped during the EFA process due to insignificant loading (<0.5) or high cross-loading (≥0.4). The iterative analysis process then yielded extraction of three factors with 26 items, which accounted for 74.821% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA with maximum likelihood robust estimation was used to validate the model derived through EFA. Two items (I37 and I43) were dropped due to low r-square value during the initial CFA. Findings revealed that the model fits the data well, the goodness-of-fit indices were adequate with 𝜒²MLR (249, N = 396) = 493.904 (p < .001), R-CFI = 0.947, R-TLI = 0.941, CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.938, RMSEA = 0.050 (90% CI, [0.045,0.055]), Standardized RMR = 0.034."
## [555] "Exploratory and Confirmatory Factorial Analysis: An initial 43 items revealed a 4-factor solution, together accounting for 50.40% of common variance. A CFA was carried out with the 43 items extracted in the EFA. This model showed fit to the data. Nevertheless, inappropriate items were successively eliminated in order to choose the most parsimonious model. This process resulted in 39 final items: chi-square[696, n = 208] = 992.7, p = .0001; chi-square/df = 1.43; CFI = .950; TLI = .946; RMSEA[CI90%] = .045[.039; .052]; WRMR = 1.024. It must be noted that an equivalence was found in this factorial structure both in the first half of the sample and in the total sample. Measurement invariance: Results indicated the indices of fit made it possible to accept the equivalence of the factorial structure obtained in the CFA for the different groups based on gender, age and teaching experience."
## [556] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Based on a principal components analysis for categorical variables (CATPCA) and parallel analysis (PA), unidimensionality was found to be acceptable in all groups for moral reasoning. For moral value evaluation, the results suggested one factor: the eigenvalue of the second factor (1.024) was smaller than the parallel random average eigenvalue (1.1403), meaning that one factor would be appropriate. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit indices of the baseline models of the groups were good for the single-factor model of moral reasoning. CFA also showed an acceptable fit for moral value evaluation (n = 763; w2 (25) = 59.032, p < .001; CMIN/df = 2.361; CFI = .955; TLI = .919; RMSEA = .042). Measurement Invariance: Measurement invariance was found across age groups, gender, and educational levels. Measurement invariance was also found for both components across delinquency groups."
## [557] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The EFA indicated that a two-factor structure was superior to the unidimensional model (p<.001). The two factors explained 48.02% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The correlated traits model provided satisfactory fit to the data (robust χ2 [64, n=401]=268.54, p<.001; RMSEA=.08; CFI=.91; SRMR=.03). The –2LL test indicated that relative to the unidimensional model, the two-factor model fit significantly better (Δχ2 (13)=641.09, p<.001). In a sample of individuals with clinically significant PTSD symptoms, the two-factor correlated traits model provided satisfactory fit to the data. Measurement Invariance: Measurement invariance across gender and PTSD status was observed."
## [558] "Principal Components Analysis: PCA with Promax rotation on the 20 vaccine acceptance items indicate that all items except item 11 loaded on the same single component explaining 57% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA indicated a better fit for the 5-factor model (𝜒²(142, N = 701) = 630, p < .001, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, upper RMSEA 90% CI = 0.08, AIC = 42557, BIC = 42862) compared to the single-factor model."
## [559] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: ESEM for the 12 final items of the SELAQ, along with the factor key that showed the items to either correspond to the ethical and privacy expectation factor (E1–E5) or the service feature expectation factor (S1–S7). The purported two‐factor model led to an acceptable fitting model using the CFA approach, χ2(53, n = 191) = 132.24, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% confidence interval [CI; 0.07, 0.11], CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, whereas the exploratory structural equation model led to a marginally worse fit, χ2(43, n = 191) = 129.50, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10, 90% CI [0.08, 0.12], CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.9;"
## [560] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: These procedures resulted in a 3-factor, 14-item measure accounting for a total of 68.32% of the variance in S-TSRI scores. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The authors tested null, one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor models to provide evidence that the three-factor structure would indeed have the best relative fit in comparison to the others. All model fit indices confirmed the superiority of the three-factor model over the other models (see Table 2): SBχ2 (74, n = 3,289) = 796, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.989, IFI = 0.989, NNFI = 0.986, and RMSEA = 0.054 (90% CI:0.051–0.058). Measurement Invariance: Factorial invariance was supported across gender, grade levels, and students of different academic levels, represented by pass and fail groups."
## [561] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Based on the screen plot and the conceptual clarity of the resultant factor solutions, a four-factor structure seemed most appropriate. The factors had eigenvalues of 9.66, 3.38, 3.19 and 2.00, and a cumulative explained variance of 65.12%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The Chi-square goodness-of-fit index presented a good fit for the data, χ2 (330, n = 353) = 731.45, p > 0.001; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.07."
## [562] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA suggested a two-factor solution, which explained 51.00% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Concerning the CFA, although the 𝜒² was significant with 𝜒²(36, n = 463) = 134.877, p < 0.001, the other indices showed satisfactory values and supported the two-factor solution of the Italian PAS: GFI = 0.954, NNFI = 0.921, CFI = 0.940, RMSEA = 0.077, SRMR = 0.066."
## [563] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The CFA of the five-factor measurement model was a good fit, Chi-squared (289, n = 163) = 522, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07. The factor loadings were significant (p < 0.01), with items loading well above 0.40 on the appropriate factor. Tests of alternative one-factor models showed that the data did not fit these structures well, Chi-squared (299, n = 163) = 2212, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.11, CFI = 0.64, and RMSEA = 0.2. A CFA of the higher-order factor measurement model was also a good fit, Chi-squared (294, n = 163) = 527, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07, though the results indicated that the higher-order model made no significant difference compared to the five-factor model (ΔChi-squared (5, n = 163) = 5, n.s.)."
## [564] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-dimensionality. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA was used to test a one-dimensional model. This model did not fit the data satisfactory (Satorra-Bentler Scaled χ2 (134, N=212)=210.64 (p<0.001), RMSEA=0.05 and CFI=0.93). The theoretically driven 4-factor model fit the data reasonably well (Satorra-Bentler Scaled χ2 (122, N=212)=154.58 (p=0.03), RMSEA=0.04 and CFI=0.95). Correlations between common factors were extremely strong. And issues indicating persistent multi-collinearity encountered when running the model, suggest that conceptually, a one-dimensional model best explains the findings."
## [565] "Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: As EFA did not reveal clear solutions, a confirmatory factor analysis considering one and two domains, respectively, was conducted for the definition of psychological control. Analyses were run separately for fathers and mothers. Considering fathers, n = 285 (there were 27 missing values) the two- dimension model got the best fit, χ2 (285, 98) = 218.26; p < .001; TLI = .88, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05. On the contrary, the one domain solution, obtained a worse fit, χ2 (285, 103) = 360.29; p < .001; TLI = .76, CFI = .80, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .06."
## [566] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The four-factor model of the adapted scale was tested through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for its ability to fit the current data. The results revealed a good fit to the data [Chi-squared (93, n = 649) = 243.5, p < .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05]."
## [567] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The two-factor model of the motivation scale was tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for its ability to fit the current data. The results revealed a good fit to the data [Chi-squared (31, n = 649) = 121.31, p < .001; CFI = .96; TLI = .93; RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .05]."
## [568] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Results of a modified model for the 16 scales that loaded on to four theorized types of pain responses—Escape, Approach, Despondence and Relaxation—on data from the full sample indicated that the model-implied covariance matrix was significantly at variance with the data, χ2 (97 N = 476) = 310.97, p < 0.001, but fit indices (CFI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.068, SRMR = 0.044) were comparable with those obtained in the separate analyses of the split sample data. Short-form scales were constructed to represent the four oblique factors, which broadly correspond to the four quadrants. CFA model fit was fair (CFI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.069, WRMR = 1.032) but significantly at variance with the data, χ2 (97, N = 476) = 313.72, p < 0.001."
## [569] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: In the first trial, items 11, 14, 19, 23, and 26 were excluded from the measurement model because the factor load was below 0.50. As a result of the analysis after the items with low factor load were removed, the values appeared as [𝜒² (199, N = 208) = 446.85, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.065, NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94]. These values reveal that the data show acceptable fit and/or perfect fit."
## [570] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The two-factor solution accounted for 62.53% of the total variance in the items before rotation. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The results suggested that the two-factor oblique model had a better fit to the data: Df = 34, χ2 = 48.80, P = .048, CFI = .98, RMSEA [CI] = .04 [.00, .07], SRMR = .04., AIC = 7177.54, BIC = 7288.16, ABIC = 7189.88. Measurement Invariance: The results from multiple group analysis indicated that the internal structure of the SLS was strictly invariant for men and women, demonstrating its applicability for both groups. Validity Invariance: The results indicated a perfect fit for the freely estimated model and χ2(9, n = 262) = 13.31, p = .15 for the equal model."
## [571] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA revealed the 25 item four-factor PARQ modified model provided a good fit for the data: chi-square(246) = 763.31, p <.000; CFI =.97; NNFI =.97; RMSEA =.04, SRMR =.04. To examine if the 25-item four-factor model would be robust among younger, as well as older participants, the sample was split between children 12 and below (n = 526) and those 13 and above (n = 585). Using CFA, results found that the model provided good fit for both samples (12 and below: chi-square (246) = 514.03, p < .001; CFI = .96; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04; 13 and above: chi-square(246) = 564.89, p < .001; CFI = .97; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04)."
## [572] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Model fit indices for the single factor structure were as follows: root mean square error of approximation=0.019; standardized root mean square residual=0.041; comparative fit index=0.986; χ2=13.69; p=0.19; n=1104)."
## [573] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The final 60-item, six-factor EFA model indicated adequate model fit: RMSEA = 0.037, 90% CI [0.038, 0.044], SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.95, χ²(1,425, N = 300) = 2146.25, < p .001. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The six-factor CFA model indicated adequate model fit across most fit indices: RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05, 0.06], SRMR = 0.07; CFI = 0.90, χ²(1,315, N = 300) = 2561.02, < p .001."
## [574] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The final EFA yielded a three factors solution that explained a total of 66.42% of the variance for the entire set of variables. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model fit statistics were optimal except RMSEA, chi-square (105, N = 51) = 111.19, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .11 (CI 90% = .08 – .13), SRMR = .06."
## [575] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA confirmed the four-factor solution. All factor loadings were significant (λs > .42, ps < .05), and the fit indices were adequate: 𝜒²diff(4) = 207, p < .001; 𝜒²(estimated parameters = 117, df = 98, N = 277) = 207, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, AIC = 15,192.17, BIC = 15,329.89)."
## [576] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principle Component Analysis revealed four factors with eigenvalues above 1. Also, scree-plot suggested a four-factor structure. These factors were soothing which explained 18.33% of the total variance; social modeling which explained 17.74% of the total variance; enhancing positive affect which explained 15.11% of the total variance; and perspective taking which explained 13.48% of the total variance. These factors accounted for 64.66% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: According to the results, the Turkish IERQ demonstrated a good fit to the model. Although the Chi-square statistic was significant (𝜒² (164, N = 275) = 440.893, p < .001), 𝜒²:df was lower than the accepted limit 5:1.The other indices revealed a good global fit (GFI = .87, AGFI = .83, NFI = .87, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .08 with a 90% confidence interval .07–.09)."
## [577] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA results confirmed a one-factor model for the Turkish FS. The model provided a satisfactory fit to the data, 𝜒²(20) = 46.80, n = 320, p < .001, RMSEA = .065 (90% CI = .041–.89, PCLOSE = .144), SRMR = .039, IFI = .969, TLI = .957, and CFI = .969 for university students. The model also provided a satisfactory fit to the data, 𝜒²(20) = 38.29, n = 180, p < .01, RMSEA = .071 (90% CI = .036–.105, PCLOSE = .142), SRMR = .039, IFI = .972, TLI = .960, and CFI = .972 for employees. Measurement Invariance: Multi-group CFA was performed to test for cross-group equality based on gender. Findings indicated that there were no gender differences—the measure had an invariant structure factorially."
## [578] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA revealed a two-factor solution for the Turkish SPANE. Fit statistics for student participants were 𝜒²(53) = 101.70, n = 320, p < .001, RMSEA = .054 (90% CI = .038–.069, PCLOSE = .333), SRMR = .029, IFI = .976, TLI = .970, and CFI = .976. The model also provided an adequate fit to the data, 𝜒²(52) = 90.04, n = 180, p < .001, RMSEA = .064 (90% CI = .041–.086, PCLOSE = .147), SRMR = .051, IFI = .951, TLI = .937, and CFI = .950 for employees. Measurement Invariance: Multi-group CFA was performed to test for cross-group equality based on gender. Findings indicated that there were no gender differences—the measure had an invariant structure factorially."
## [579] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The two-factor solution explained 42.98% of the shared variance from the 12 items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The indexes of fit were adequate for the Spanish ECR-12. The correlations between the two latent factors ranged from r = .24 (p < .001) in sample 5 to r = .42 (p < .001) in male partners from sample 6, suggesting a weak to moderate association. In sample 3, however, the correlation was null, r = .04 (p = .447). Measurement Invariance: Gender invariance testing revealed no significant difference between men and women in the factor loadings in sample 2, Δχ2 (10, N = 919) = 10.59, p = .390; sample 3, Δχ2 (10, N = 578) = 8.99, p = .532; sample 4, Δχ2 (10, N = 436) = 7.65, p = .663; and sample 6, Δχ2 (10, N = 180) = 14.93, p = .135. Further analysis revealed that partial metric invariance was supported; specifically, items 9 and 27 from the avoidance subscale showed higher factor loadings in gay men compared to women."
## [580] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: To create and examine a shorter version of the Chinese EAC-B, a final CFA was conducted. Subscales with smaller path coefficients were deleted from each factor to look for a parsimonious model from the original path model. To reduce the number of EAC-B subscales to a minimum, only three subscales were retained in each factor. This parsimonious model revealed good model fit indices, where chi-square was 51.14 (N = 303, df = 24), RMSEA was 0.06, CFI was 0.99, NFI was 0.98, and RFI was 0.97. All parameters were significant."
## [581] "Principal component analysis: PCA showed that the EGS with 13 items contains two components because of the negatively formulated items. This can also be seen in the zero-order correlations table where the reversed coded items don’t correlate well with the other items. Removing the negatively formulated items showed that the EGS is a one-component measure. Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA of the EGS with 13 items was not satisfactory (χ2 (65, N = 186) = 907.846, p < .001, CFI = .835, RMSEA = .265, p < .05). The negatively formulated items perform poorly in this model. The CFA of the EGS with 10 items was satisfactory (χ2 (35, N = 186) = 73.731, p < .001, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .077, p < .05). Following the advice from Roszkowski and Soven (2010), the negatively formulated items were not included in the total score of the EGS. However, the negatively worded items are included in the final version of the scale because they can be used in a survey to check for response bias."
## [582] "Exploratory factor analysis: Of the 29 original items, 15 items demonstrated adequateness and appropriateness for evaluating workaholism in Korea, and thus were extracted. Confirmatory factor analysis: Although CMIN/DF (= 15.946, p < 0.001) was larger than 3, all the indices for model-fit indicated that this measurement model was statistically appropriate and acceptable. Compared to the Model 1 of Aziz et al. (2013), the four-factor model of the current measure (Model 2) fits much better in measuring workaholism in Korea. Moreover, this Model 2 with four-factor structure was replicated in Model 4 with different subsamples (N = 2,981) that was randomly selected. Lastly, it became clear that Models 1, 2, and 4 with second-order structure showed definitely far better model fit than single-order structure (Model 3). These results support the construct validity of the measure."
## [583] "Confirmatory factor analysis: results showed that Model 5 (chi-square (764, N=974) = 2404.33; p < .001, scaling correction factor for MLR = 1.15, CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.047 [CI: 0.045, 0.049]; SRMR = 0.05) fitted the data better than the other 4 models tested."
## [584] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The original model assuming a two-factor model with uncorrelated errors in the total sample showed contradictory findings. Following minor model modifications, the final model, allowing for correlations of unique variances between two items from the depressive avoidances scale (items 3 and 4, items 4 and 5) as well as between two items from the anxious avoidance scale (items 6 and 8, items 7 and 9), showed a good fit to the data in the first split-half sample (n = 672; 𝜒² = 95.529, p < .001; CFI = .987; TLI = .978; RMSEA = .071, 90%CI: .056,.085; SRMR = .023). The cross-validation in the second split-half sample (N = 673) confirmed the good fit to the data (𝜒² = 101.601, p < .001; CFI = .985; TLI = .976; RMSEA = .073, 90%CI: .059,.088; SRMR = .034). Because the 𝜒²-test is strongly influenced by sample size, it was not taken into account as a global measure of model fit."
## [585] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA with the original 24 items divided into 4 subscales proposed by Crick et al. (2005), was conducted and results revealed an unstable factor structure. Thus, a unidimensional version of 11 items suggested by Sharp et al. (2014), was tested and confirmed through a CFA. In the final solution of 10 items, chi-squared test was significant (𝜒² (33, N = 256) = 61.94, p = 0.002), as well as all factor loadings (p < 0.001). Fit indexes revealed a better adjustment (RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.05) when compared with the 11-item solution. Measurement Invariance: Measurement invariance of the BPFS-C across sex revealed configural and metric invariance and partial scalar invariance."
## [586] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A CFA with the 24 items of the BPFS-P was performed using the Maximum Likelihood Robust estimation method. In this model, chi-squared test presented a significant result and fit indexes indicated a poor fit to the empirical data. Following the removal of items with loadings under 0.32 and correlations between Items 19 and 17 and Items 18 and 14, an 11-item unidimensional solution was obtained. In the final model, chi-squared test was significant (𝜒² (42, N = 259) = 82.03, p < 0.001). Fit indexes revealed good adjustment (RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.05), and all factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001)."
## [587] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The items are organized into a single factor, resulting in a one-dimensional questionnaire. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The fit indices of the AFC were optimal: chi-square (9, n = 313) = 12.35, p = .19, RMSEA = .032 (90% CI [.00-.07]), NNFI = .94, CFI = .96, SRMR = .031. The fit indices of the model by groups were also adequate. Measurement Invariance: To study whether there are differences between the age groups, the configural model was calculated, which was considered as the base model: χ2 (16, N = 626) = 27.71, p = .03, RMSEA = .048 (90% CI [.01-.07]), NNFI = .87, CFI = .93, SRMR = .046. Then an invariant model was estimated in in which the factor loadings were forced to be equal in the two groups. The change between models was Δχ2 (6, N = 626) = 5.39, p = .42, which, not being significant, indicates that the pattern of factor loadings is similar in both groups. Finally, it was tested whether the intersections of the items were invariant."
## [588] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model yielded the following acceptable fit indices: χ2 (332, N = 326) = 703.692, p < .0001; RMSEA = 0.059 (C.I. 90% 0.053–0.065), probability RMSEA < = 0.05; p = .010; CFI = 0.912; TLI = 0.900; SRMR = 0.062, p < .0001. The correlations between the factors were significant and ranged from -0.284 to 0.543 (p < .01)."
## [589] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA analyses showed that fit indices were all within the acceptable limit [𝜒² (13, N = 1304) = 299.47, p < .05; SRMR= .061; GFI = .936; NFI = .912; IFI = .915; CFI = .915]. The factor loadings of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale were found significant ranging from .484 to .723. The unidimensionality of the 7-item scale was confirmed on a Turkish sample."
## [590] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A final EFA was executed forcing the extraction of a single factor, which explained 20% of the variance, but one of the dimensions did not register any item with a load higher than 0.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The confirmatory analysis for this model shows a good fit: N = 3774, χ2 = 5.394, df = 2, p = 0.06; IFC = 0.99, TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR = 0.009, with significant factorial loads of 0.56, 0.82, 0.62, and 0.63, respectively. Measurement Invariance: Multigroup factor invariance analyses conducted on the basis of gender and administrative dependence of the establishments indicate that the scale meets measurement criteria without variation among these established groups."
## [591] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After the deletion of five items, CFA results concerning the shortened scale revealed adequate-to-good model fits for the karate, 𝜒² (80, N = 184) = 119.937, 𝜒²/df = 1.49, CFI = 0.920, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.063, and football versions, 𝜒² (80, N = 184) = 126.936, 𝜒²/df = 1.59, CFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.061."
## [592] "Principal Component Analysis: Cronbach Alpha values (indicating sufficient thresholds of agreement) combined with a Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation (an oblique rotation method used in light of items being significantly correlated to one another) confirmed a single construct among the items (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.726; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: 𝜒² [10, N = 310] = 242.7, p < .000)."
## [593] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA findings confirmed a two-factor model over a one-factor and a three-factor model. Fit statistics were as follows: 𝜒²(19,N=132) = 22.53 (p > 0.05), CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.038 (90% CI ranged from 0.000 to 0.088). Measurement Invariance: Multiple-group CFAs revealed that the 2-factor learning interest measurement is invariant across genders."
## [594] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: The EFA yielded 11 clear factors explaining 78% of the variance. Twenty-one items with relatively high modification indices and low loadings were deleted, leaving 36 final items. A respecified CFA yielded improved fit (model chi-square = 1458.410, df = 539, chi-square/df = 2.706, TLI =.914, CFI =.926, SRMR =.0529; RMSEA = .043, RMSEA 90% CI = .041- .046). All standardized loadings were significant (p < .001), ranging from .351 to .868. Although the SRMR and RMSEA were at or better than recommended values, the chi-square ratio, TLI, and CFI met the less stringent criteria (TLI ≥ .90, CFI ≥.93). The fit statistics were clearly superior to a one-factor model and the null model that were calculated for comparison purposes CFA analysis of a public-sector subsample (n = 162), despite the modest sample size, yielded generally acceptable fit (e.g., chi-square/df < 2; SRMR < .08; RMSEA < .08)."
## [595] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Based on the number of eigenvalues that were greater than or equal to 1.0, the examination of the scree plot, and the results from the parallel analysis, a one-factor solution emerged. Communalities ranged between .516 and .838, and the percentage of explained variance was 73.26%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA using all 11 items indicated good model fit according to goodness of fit indices and SRMR, 𝜒² (df= 44, n= 702)= 142.606, CFI= .998, GFI= .998, NFI= .998, SRMR= .033, and marginal fit according to the RMSEA (RMSEA= .057). Standardized regression weights ranged from .693 to .929."
## [596] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The comparison data (CD) approach suggested that the best solution contained only one factor. The one-factor solution was adopted, and the results of the correspondent EFA revealed 50.8% of explained variance (RMSR = 0.086). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The goodness-of-fit indices were indicative of an acceptable fit of the data to the model (Figure 2; χ2 (65) = 271.199, n = 277, χ2/df = 4.172, CFI = 0.993, NFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.992, SRMR = 0.054, RMSEA = 0.107, P(rmsea ≤ 0.05) < 0.001, 90% CI ]0.094; 0.121). Measurement Invariance: Full uniqueness measurement invariance was achieved both by multiple criteria (Satorra & Bentler, 2001; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), which allows establishing comparisons between the shared mental models latent scores among the football and futsal referees."
## [597] "Confirmatory factor analysis: CFA using LISREL 8.8 and a maximum likelihood estimation on the final five items was conducted. All paths were significant, and fit statistics were acceptable (chi-square(5, N=383)520,p< 0.001; CFI=0.99; TLI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.02; RMSEA = 0.09) offering additional validity evidence."
## [598] "Item Factor Analysis: IFA across four different measurement models (e.g. a single factor model, a four-factor oblique model, a higher order factor model and a bi-factor model) indicated the bi-factor model had the best global fit chi-square(207, n = 1203) = 1915.38; CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .083 (.079-.086)."
## [599] "Confirmatory factor analysis: For BN, after fixing high collinearity between the Emotional Needs and Self-Security factors, results indicated an acceptable fit for the model [𝜒²(18, N=480)=40.34, p < .01; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.97; Tucker- Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.95]. For ADL, the hypothesized model fit the data [𝜒²(17, N=480)=53.97, p < .01; RMSEA=0.07; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.92]."
## [600] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The solution with five factors was responsible for explaining 48.4% of the variance total. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The respecified model with 31 items subdivided into five scales was submitted to CFA and it was observed that the fit indices improved considerably, reaching the recommended standards (X²/(430)=1644.028, p < 0.001, N=706; X²/df=2.823; GFI=0.908; CFI= 0.913; RMSEA = 0.064)."
## [601] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA supported a 7-factor structure of the scale, after removing the accepting and non-judgmental attitude facet. Factor loadings (> .34) were acceptable, and the items revealed a good model fit: 𝜒² (188, N = 223) = 236.06, 𝜒²/df = 1.256, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.03 [90% CI: 0.02 to 0.05], and SRMR = 0.05."
## [602] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: PCA revealed a 5-factor solution. There was a good model fit chi-squared (df = 247, N = 665) = 1,082.62, p < 0.05, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .071. Model fit could not be improved by further item deletion. Emotional and functional value, social value (friends), social value (parents), curiosity value and monetary value were identified as important dimensions of children’s perceptions of value (p < 0.01). In a separate sample, there was good model fit for the structural model chi-square (df = 656, N = 793) = 2,620.707, p < .05, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .061."
## [603] "Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA with a three dimensional model was proposed, a model which has identical structure of the original version of the questionnaire. Regarding the results of the CFA, a significant chi-square value was obtained [𝜒² = 247.709; p < .001; n = 751]; CFI = .827; BBNFI = .806; BBNNFI = .741; GFI = .973; AGFI = .949; SRMR = 0.088; RMSEA = .087 and RMR = .069. For all indices, the results obtained indicate a poor fit. As the fit of the CFA was not as expected, EFA was performed. Findings revealed two dimensions explaining variance in 45.9%. All the indices analyzed showed that the model provides a good fit (𝜒² = 48.441; gl = 19; p < 0.001; 𝜒²/gl = 2.54; CFI = 0.980; GFI = 0.991; AGFI = 0.982; RMSEA = 0.045)."
## [604] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The results yielded two factors that explained 63.2% of the total variance. All the loadings of the items that formed the different factors were above .50. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After making a re-specification in the model, the final results of the fit indices led to the acceptance of the proposed model: Chi-squared(25, N = 152) = 33.685, p = .115, Chi-squared/df = 1.35, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, SRMR = .064, RMSEA = .048 (LO90 = .000 – HI90 = .086)."
## [605] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The hypothesized five-factor structure, with all items loading on their respective factors, fit the data in an acceptable manner, with χ2 [142, n = 309] = 333.51, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, TLI = .93, and SRMR = 0.060 [58]. The proposed model guaranteed a substantial improvement in fit indexes compared to four alternative models. In addition, all standardized factor loadings were above .40 and significant. These results suggested that the five constructs captured distinctiveness as expected by the authors."
## [606] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a factorial structure that included four correlated factors. The estimated model showed good fit indexes: 𝜒² (48, N = 1797) = 51.18, p = .35, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.006, and SRMR = 0.059. All factor loadings of the items were higher than 0.31."
## [607] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The measurement model showed good fit indexes: χ2 (6, N=873)= 28.98, p<0.01, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.066, and SRMR=0.063."
## [608] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model showed a good fit, χ2 (183, N= 1719)= 1590, RMSEA= 0.067, NNFI= .92, CFI= .93. All item factor loadings were statistically different from zero."
## [609] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Regarding the OSV measure model, confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a factorial structure that included three first-order factors (insistence, threats, and dissemination of content) grouped within a general second-order factor (online sexual victimization). This model showed a good data fit: χ2(32, N=873)=146.48, p<0.001, CFI=0.98, NNFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.064, and SRMR=0.048."
## [610] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: The principal axis factoring with promax rotation resulted in a one-factor solution that exceeded an eigenvalue of 1 and explained 65.8% of the variance. All the factor loadings ranged from .71 to .90. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After item removal, the final four-item model exhibited excellent fit with the data (𝜒² (N = 162, df = 2) = 1.12, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .026, SRMR = .018)."
## [611] "Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For the Ideal expectation scale, the two‐factor model, when fitted using ESEM, resulted in an acceptable fit (Chi-squared [43, N = 161] = 107.42, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10, 90% CI [0.07, 0.12], CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93) and was marginally better than the CFA model (Chi-squared [53, 161] = 145.58, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10, 90% CI [0.08, 0.13], CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92). As for the Predicted expectation scale, an improved model fit was obtained using ESEM (Chi-squared [43, N = 161] = 118.05, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10, 90% CI [0.08, 0.13], CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95) compared with the CFA (Chi-squared [53, N = 161] = 197.79, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.13, 90% CI [0.11, 0.15], CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93)."
## [612] "Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For the Ideal expectation scale, a marginally improved fit was obtained from the CFA (Chi-squared [53, N = 543] = 115.92, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.04, 0.06], CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97) compared with the ESEM (Chi-squared [43, N = 543] = 109.74, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.05, 0.07], CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96). As for the Predicted expectation scale, a comparison between the results obtained from both the ESEM (Chi-squared [43, N = 543] = 327.78, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.11, 90% CI [0.10, 0.12], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94) and CFA (Chi-squared [53, N = 543] = 376.13, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.11, 90% CI [0.10, 0.12], CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94) showed the fits to be marginally different."
## [613] "Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For the Ideal expectation scale, an improved fit was obtained from the ESEM (Chi-squared [43, N = 1,247] = 166.63, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.04, 0.06], CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97) than the CFA (Chi-squared [53, N = 1,247] = 288.05, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [0.05, 0.07], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95). As for the Predicted expectation scale, a marginal improvement in model fit was obtained using the ESEM (Chi-squared (43, N = 1,247) = 513.51, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.09, 0.10], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93) compared with the CFA (Chi-squared (53, N = 1,247) = 612.15, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.09, 0.10], CFI = .95, TLI = 0.94)."
## [614] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The first CFA considered the overall sample of the Spanish-speaking countries (n = 4,908) and showed adequate fit indices (CFI = 0.972; GFI = 0.930; NFI 5 0.969; TLI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.044 (90% CI: 0.043 – 0.045); SRMR = 0.032), as well as the CFA conducted with the overall six countries’ samples (N = 7,404; CFI = 0.972; GFI = 0.937; NFI = 0.970; TLI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.043 (90% CI: 0.042 – 0.044); SRMR = 0.033). Measurement Invariance: Regarding MI analyses across the Spanish-speaking countries’ samples, the baseline model for testing configural invariance (MI1a) showed an acceptable fit to the data."
## [615] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The first CFA considered the overall sample of the Spanish-speaking countries (n = 4,908) and showed adequate fit indices (CFI = 0.972; GFI = 0.930; NFI 5 0.969; TLI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.044 (90% CI: 0.043 – 0.045); SRMR = 0.032), as well as the CFA conducted with the overall six countries’ samples (N = 7,404; CFI = 0.972; GFI = 0.937; NFI = 0.970; TLI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.043 (90% CI: 0.042 – 0.044); SRMR = 0.033). Measurement Invariance: Regarding MI analyses across the Spanish-speaking countries’ samples, the baseline model for testing configural invariance (MI1a) showed an acceptable fit to the data."
## [616] "Confirmatory factor analysis: Among the models tested, Model 2 with two correlated factors had good model fit for all fit indices (χ² (df, N), p = 2 109.11 (229, N = 1 762), p < .01, CFI = .985, TLI = .982 RMSEA [CIl; CIu] = .068 [.066; .071], SRMR = .022)."
## [617] "Exploratory and Confirmatory factor analysis: A five-factor EFA was conducted with the 20 items selected. The five-factor solution accounted for 83% of the total variance of initial eigenvalues. The five-factor CFA oblique model constrained the 20 CWS items to load onto the five corresponding factors, which were allowed to correlate with each other. The standardized factor loadings ranged from .79 to .95. The fit statistics for this CFA model oblique were as follows: MLRχ2(160, N = 274) = 302.04, p < .001, CFI = .951, SRMR = .030, RMSEA = .057 (90% confidence interval .047–.067). The CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA indices all indicated a good data-to-model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFA model for the single-factor five-item (items 1, 8, 11, 15, and 19) CWS yielded the following fit statistics: MLRχ2 (5, N=274) =7.26, p < .001, CFI = .994, SRMR = .017, RMSEA = .041 (90% confidence interval .000–.100), which resulted in a very good data-to-model fit."
## [618] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The hypothesized model was tested and support was found for the three-factor structure, 𝜒² (74, N = 499) = 238.13, p < .001, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, and TLI = 0.93. Factor loadings were acceptable, ranging from .56 to 1.03."
## [619] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The model fit for the final 8-item solution was acceptable, χ²(20, N = 425) = 60.76, p < 0.001, more robust RMSEA = 0.077, CFI = 0.95 and SRMR = 0.04."
## [620] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The three competing measurement models underlying the MIHT were fitted by using the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). The χ2 test does not support the fit of any of these models. Although the RMSEA could support an acceptable fit of these models, the CFI and the TLI suggest the opposite. For the MIHT, the results found there were no substantive differences be- tween the first-order and second-order factor models. However, the bifactor model of the MIHT fitted slightly better our data than the two other models, but remains insufficient to select it. For the MIHT-SF, the 4-correlated factor model provided adequate fit to the data (χ2(113, N = 709)= 545.18, p < .001, CFI = .938, TLI = .925, RMSEA = .073, SRMR = .048)."
## [621] "Confirmatory factor analysis: A six-factor 26-item measurement model yielded the following model fit indices: χ2 = (288, N = 433) = 615.376, p < .001, CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.948, RMSEA = 0.052. Based on Browne and Cudeck (1993) and Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria, the current measurement model had a good fit."
## [622] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: An EFA using promax rotation on the ratings of the 50 items generated by the nomination procedure indicated a 31-item, 6-factor solution accounting for 63% of the variance. All items loaded at above 0.50 on one of the six factors. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA indicated that a 6-factor structure adequately fit the data, χ2(1012, N = 318) = 1982.333, p < .01, CFI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.078."
## [623] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Factor analysis showed that only one factor in the initial solution had an eigenvalue greater than 1, which explained 65.94% of the variance in the FVC-19S scores. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The final modified model (model 3) after further modification indicated that all fit indices were improved and within the acceptable limit [𝜒² (df = 13, n = 725) = 105.891, p < .05; GFI = .96; CFI = .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA = 0.10]"
## [624] "Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A one-factor model was fitted to the DAR- 5 dataset (𝜒² (5, N = 368) = 6.52, p = .26) and robust model fit information was obtained: CFI = .996, TLI = .991, SRMR = .021, RMSEA = .029 (95%CI: .000 - .082), AIC = 3612.049, BIC = 3612.049, and aBIC = 3623.081. All these fit statistics supported the appropriateness of a one-factor solution. Item Response Theory: Item performance of the unidimensional scale was investigated under the 2-parameter logistic (2-PL) item response theory (IRT) paradigm. All five DAR items showed adequate discrimination (𝛼 > 1.0) for the latent anger dimension (θ). Item #3 displayed the highest discrimination of θ and item #4 the lowest, respectively 𝛼 = 2.39 and 1.35."
## [625] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Parallel analysis suggested that a 2-factor solution was the more adequate for the data set. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Because the 2 CFA factors were significantly correlated at 0.852, we examined a second-order hierarchical model that produced a good fit as well: c2 (33, N = 358) = 92.080, P,.001, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.071 (90% confidence interval = 0.054-0.088), P=.023, SRMR = 0.051. All factor loadings were significant, ranging from 0.659 to 0.932."
## [626] "Item Response Theory (IRT): IRT analysis of the initial 12-item measure resulted in the removal of 3 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): An EFA with 9 remaining items following IRT showed 2 factors explaining 57% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the 2-factor structure of the scale identified by the EFA and resulted in poor model fit suggesting the removal of 1 item. The revised model for the final 8-item measure showed an acceptable fit to the data: χ2(19, N = 491) = 60.18, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.066, 90% CI (0.051, 0.082), p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.057, CFI = 0.951, and TLI = 0.928."
## [627] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: Eliminating items with high cross-loadings yielded a 21-item scale with 2 factors that explained 34.5% (Unnerved factor) and 27.5% (Disoriented factor) of the variance. The model had good fit (RMSEA =. 043, .90 CI [.037, .049], χ2(89, N = 965) = 248.72, p <.001, χ2/df = 2.79, CFI = .985). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The authors noted that a 1-facor solution (Unnerved factor) was selected due to theoretical reasons. A series of confirmatory factor analysis supported the 1-factor model: RMSEA = .095, .90 CI (.077, .095), p < .001, χ2(20, N = 471) = 104.262, p < .001, χ2/df = 5.21."
## [628] "Exploratory Factor Analysis: EFA of the 14-item TPDS-R at 12, 20 and 28 weeks in the entire sample (N = 1081) showed a clear three-factor structure: a four-item partner involvement (PI) dimension, a five-item NA pregnancy subcomponent and a five-item NA childbirth subcomponent. The TPDS-R-NA showed a total explained variance of 54.7%. EFA of the four-item TPDS-R-PI at 12 weeks of pregnancy in sample I (n = 531) showed a clear one-factor structure (KMO = 0.71, Bartlett’s p < .001) with total variance explained of 61.2%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: CFA of the 14-item TPDS-R at 12, 20 and 28 weeks in the entire sample (N = 1081) showed an adequate model fit of the three-factor solution: CFI, NFI, TLI, and RMSEA results were >0.9, and <0.06, respectively."records_wide$number_of_factors <- str_match_all(records_wide$FactorAnalysis, regex("(\\d+)(-| )factor", ignore_case = TRUE)) %>% map(~ as.numeric(.[,2]))
records_wide$number_of_factors_subscales <- str_match_all(records_wide$FactorsAndSubscales, ";") %>% map_dbl(~ length(.)) + 1
records_wide$number_of_factors_subscales[is.na(records_wide$FactorsAndSubscales)] <- NA_real_
records_wide$FactorsAndSubscales %>% na.omit()## [1] "Factors: Perceived discrimination; Immigration-related experiences"
## [2] "Factors: Mastery-approach goals; Mastery-avoidance goals; Performance-approach goals; Performance-avoidance goals"
## [3] "Factors: Short-term consequences; Social disapproval; Long-term concerns"
## [4] "Subscales: Rapport; Apprenticeship; Identification-individuation"
## [5] "Factors: Air travel anxiety; Air travel anger; Airline/airport trust"
## [6] "Factors: Physical concerns; Cognitive concerns; social concerns"
## [7] "Factors: Unawareness of racial privilege; Institutional discrimination; Blatant racial issues"
## [8] "Subscales: Structural quality; Privacy; Indoor climatic conditions; Hazards; Cleanliness/Clutter; Child resources; Neighborhood quality"
## [9] "Factors: Discussing/mentoring; Resources; Modeling; Recognition/encouragement"
## [10] "Factors: Curriculum and supervision; Climate and comfort; Honesty in recruitment; Multicultural research"
## [11] "Subscales: Mind-reading; Attention to detail; Social skills; Imagination"
## [12] "Factors: Citational classism; Institutionalized classism; Interpersonal via discounting"
## [13] "Factors: Relationship initiation; Negative reactions; Maintaining the bond; Sexual pleasure and motivation"
## [14] "Factors: Philosophy of Life; Self/Positive Life Attitude; Interpersonal Relationships"
## [15] "Subscales: Religious Well-being; Existential Well-being"
## [16] "Subscales: Emotional symptoms; Conduct problems; Hyperactivity-Inattention; Peer Relationship Problems; Prosocial Behavior"
## [17] "Subscales: Suicide Intent; Interpersonal Influence; Emotion Relief; Suicide Communication; Lethality; Rescue Likelihood."
## [18] "Factors: Constructing meaning; Facilitating action"
## [19] "Factors: Increased significance; Senses sharpening; Impending understanding; Heightened emotionality; Heightened cognition"
## [20] "Factors: Dissociation; Intrusion-arousal; Avoidance"
## [21] "Factors: ADHD; Solitary aggressive [provocative]; Solitary aggressive [impulsive]; Oppositional defiant; Diffident; Avoidant"
## [22] "Subscales: Satisfaction; Stress"
## [23] "Factors: Sexual permissiveness; Sexual responsibility; Sexual communion; Sexual instrumentality; Sexual conventionality; Sexual avoidance; Sexual control; Sexual power"
## [24] "Subscales: Internality; Stability; Globality."
## [25] "Subscales: Positive interpersonal experiences; Conformity and observance of convention; Evaluation anxiety; Low self regard; Superego strength; Poise vs. dysphoric moods and paranoid attitudes"
## [26] "Subscales: External Regulation; Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation; Intrinsic Regulation; Amotivation."
## [27] "Subscales: Self-Oriented Perfectionism (12 items); Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (10 items)."
## [28] "Factors: Union loyalty; Responsibility to the union; Willingness to work for the union; Belief in unionism"
## [29] "Subscales: Internality; Chance; Powerful others"
## [30] "Factors: Support; Rejection; Overprotection."
## [31] "Factors: Preference for order; Preference for predictability; Decisiveness; Discomfort with ambiguity; Closed-mindedness"
## [32] "Factors: Communication/companionship; Sex/affection; Health"
## [33] "Subscales: Individual-focused TFL; Group-focused TFL"
## [34] "Factors: Self-destructive tendencies; Mentation problems; Conflict with parents; Regressive anxiety; Fighting; Delinquency; Isolation"
## [35] "Subscales: Perspective taking; Fantasy; Empathic concern; Personal distress"
## [36] "Factors: Positive valence; Negative valence; Positive emotionality; Negative emotionality; Conscientiousness; Agreeableness; Conventionality"
## [37] "Subscales: Reality testing; Identity diffusion; Primitive defenses"
## [38] "Subscales: State; Trait. Factors: Cognitive; Somatic."
## [39] "Subscales: Somatization (SOM); Obsessive-Compulsive (OBS); Interpersonal Sensitivity (INT); Depression (DEP); Anxiety (ANX); Hostility (HOS); Phobic Anxiety (PHOB); Paranoid Ideation (PAR); and Psychoticism (PSY)."
## [40] "Factors: Acceptance/rejection; Scientific orientation; Spiritual-religious aspects"
## [41] "Factors: Imagistic Mode; Haptic Mode; Conceptual Mode; Sexual and Aggressive Involvement; Wish for Reciprocity; Continuing the Therapeutic Dialogue; Failures of Benign Internalization; Effort to Create a Therapist Introject; Mourning."
## [42] "Factors: Mastery of exercise; Body perception; Social comfort/discomfort; Perception of fitness"
## [43] "Factors: Awkward behaviors in embarrassing situations; Interaction with the opposite sex; Interaction with strangers; Criticism and embarrassment; Assertive expression of annoyance; Disgust or displeasure; Speaking/performing in public/talking with people in authority"
## [44] "Scales: Planning; Execution control; Self-reflection. Subscales: Goal setting, Strategic planning, Beliefs of self-efficacy, Goal orientation, Intrinsic interest; Focusing attention, Self-instruction or imagery, Self-monitoring; Self-assessment; Attributions; Self-reactions; Adaptability."
## [45] "Factors: Powerlessness; High power; Surrender"
## [46] "Factors: Attention to feelings; Clarity in discrimination of feelings; Mood repair"
## [47] "Subscales: Quality of care issues; Discriminatory experiences; Environmental stressors; Exposure to catastrophic death and dying"
## [48] "Subscales: Tension; Worry; Test-Irrelevant thinking; Bodily symptoms"
## [49] "Factors: Physical, emotional, and social consequences of tinnitus; Hearing ability of the patient; Patients’ view of tinnitus."
## [50] "Subscales: Angry coping; Unassertive coping"
## [51] "Subscales: Self-regard; School confidence; School abilities; Physical appearance; Physical abilities"
## [52] "Factors: Work interference with personal life; Personal life interference with work; Work enhancement of personal life; Personal life enhancement of work."
## [53] "Reactions Scale subscales: Feedback; Distraction; Downplaying; Humor; Venting; Rumination; Submission. Goals Scale subscales: Enforcing personal standards; Enforcing social norms; Regulating affect; Protecting reputation; Weighing costs; Avoiding conflicts; Taking revenge."
## [54] "Factors: General racism experiences; Racism experiences in gay contexts"
## [55] "Subscales: Experiencing withdrawal; Feeling depressed; Feeling social pressure to use drugs unsafely"
## [56] "Subscales: Distress/Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [57] "Subscales: Realism; Genuineness"
## [58] "Subscales: Pre-Encounter Assimilation (PA); Pre-Encounter Miseducation (PM); Pre-Encounter Self-Hatred (PSH); lmmersion-Emersion Anti-White (IEAW); Internalization Afrocentricity (IA); and Internalization Multiculturalist Inclusive (IMCI)."
## [59] "Subscales: Home integration; Social integration; Productive integration"
## [60] "Factors: Security and retention; Support for career and skill development; Participation; Loyalty and performance; Responsibility for career and skill development"
## [61] "Subscales: Abuse-Specific events; Abuse-Related events; Public disclosure events"
## [62] "Subscales: Abuse; Dissociation"
## [63] "Factors: Global Positive Effects; Global Negative Effects; Generalized Arousal; Anxiety; Relaxation and Tension Reduction."
## [64] "Subscales: Exploration; Affiliation; Experimentation; Assimilation"
## [65] "Factors: Task-oriented coping; Emotion-oriented coping; Avoidance-oriented coping"
## [66] "Subscales: Depression; Hopelessness; Critical item checklist"
## [67] "Factors: Cognitive restraint of eating; Disinhibition; Hunger"
## [68] "Subscales: Panic attacks; phobic avoidance; anticipatory anxiety; disability; and worries about health."
## [69] "Subscales: Alienation from self; Alienation from work; Powerlessness; Security; External versus internal locus of control"
## [70] "Subscales: Wife beating is justified; Wives gain from beatings; Help should be given; Offender should be punished; Offender is responsible"
## [71] "Scales [Factors]: Marriage Role-Expectations [Socio-Emotional Integration; Social-Intellectual Equality; Pre-Marital Chastity; Sexual Fidelity; Social Influence; Sexual Gratification; Social Relations and Community Affairs; Togetherness and Role-Sharing; Wife Adequacy; Intimacy and Parental Adequacy; Desire for Masculine Dominance]; Marriage Role-Enactment [Social Influence; Participation in Community Affairs; Social Activity; Social Integration; Division of Influence; Work Performance; Wife Adequacy; Masculine Dominance; Intimacy Understanding and Sexual Gratification]."
## [72] "Subscales: Values; Beliefs; Attitudes"
## [73] "Subscales: Task; Emotion; Avoidance"
## [74] "Subscales: Significant Other; Family; Friends."
## [75] "Subscale: Being loved; Focus on partner's state; Feelings of love toward partner; Desire for partner involvement"
## [76] "Subscales: Self-blame; Child blame; Perpetrator blame; Negative impact"
## [77] "Factors: Per Merluzzi and Martinez Sanchez (1997)--Social and Leisure Activities; Job and Household Duties; Psychological Distress; Sexual Relationship; Relationships With Partner and Family; Health Care Orientation; Help From Others."
## [78] "Subscales: Frequency of social contacts; Satisfaction with social relations; Quantity of leisure activities; Satisfaction with leisure activities"
## [79] "Subscales: Role overload subscale; Role ambiguity subscale; Nonparticipation subscale"
## [80] "Subscales: Expertness; Attractiveness; Trustworthiness."
## [81] "Subscales: Intrinsic values; Organization-math ethic; Upward striving; Social status of job; Conventional ethic; Attitude toward earnings"
## [82] "Subscales: Avoidance and fear of sexual and physical intimacy; Thoughts about sex; Role of sex in relationships; Attraction/interest and sexuality"
## [83] "Subscales: Stigma and shame; Social isolation; discrimination; Smoking"
## [84] "Factors: Family Health; Return to Work; Mother’s Well-being; Relationship/Support; Infant Care; Spouse"
## [85] "Factors: Personal; Family and Friends; Physician/Health Care Team; Neighborhood/Community; Organizations; Worksites; Media and Policy."
## [86] "Factors: Explicit power-sex; Enjoyment of dominance; enjoyment of submission"
## [87] "Subscales: D Scale; F Scale."
## [88] "Factors: Maintenance of activity and independence; Coping with treatment-related side effects; Accepting cancer/maintaining positive attitude; Seeking and understanding medical information; Affective regulation; Seeking support"
## [89] "Subscales: Basic human needs; Activities of daily living."
## [90] "Subscales: Risky sex expectancies; Risky sexual behavior; Gender-based sexual risk perceptions"
## [91] "Factors: Death and Danger fears; Social Evaluation and Psychic Stress fears; Physiological Experiences fears; Animal fears"
## [92] "Subscales: Sex drive; Attitudes toward casual sex; Sexual communication; Attitudes toward sexually explicit material; Sexual adventurism; Sexual fantasies and thoughts; Masturbatory attitudes; Attitudes toward sexy clothing; Sexual self-esteem; Body image; and Reputation concerns."
## [93] "Factors: Traditional conception; Progressive conception; Subject matter; Social conception"
## [94] "Subscales: Role Overload; Perceived Managerial Support for Safety; Perceived Supervisor Support for Safety; Perceived Coworker Support for Safety; and Hazardous Work Events."
## [95] "Factors: Sacrifice for family; Sacrifice for others; Self-denial; Lack of self-interest"
## [96] "Behavioral Regulation Subscales: External; Introjected; Identified; Intrinsic; Integrated; Amotivation"
## [97] "Subscales: Significant Other; Family; Friends; Military Peers."
## [98] "Subscales: External; Introject; Identified; Intrinsic."
## [99] "Factors: Fear of Negative Evaluation; Illness/Injury Sensitivity; Anxiety Sensitivity."
## [100] "Factors: Sense of belonging to the country and its people; Commitment and attachment to the place and the wish to stay in Israel."
## [101] "Factors: Work-Family Conflict (WFC); Family-Work Conflict (FWC)."
## [102] "Factors: Grandiose-Manipulative; Callous-Unemotional; and Impulsive-Irresponsible."
## [103] "Subscales: Work; Family."
## [104] "Factors: Visuospatial memory loaded by VSLT measures; General intelligence/attention; Verbal memory"
## [105] "Subscales: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; Openness to experience."
## [106] "Factors: Cognitive/affective anxiety; Behavioral/subjective anxiety; Somatic anxiety"
## [107] "Factor: Positive affect; Negative affect."
## [108] "Scales: Assured-Dominant; Authoritarian-Aggressive; Hostile-Disagreeable; Socially Neurotic; Unassured-Submissive; Unassuming-Ingenuous; Warm-Agreeable; Gregarious-Extraverted."
## [109] "Subscales: Pro-Black; Anti-White; Racism Awareness."
## [110] "Factors: Global Positive Effects; Global Negative Effects; General Arousal; Anxiety; Relaxation; and Tension Reduction."
## [111] "Factors: Self-efficacy in situations of social pressure; Self-efficacy in situations of opportunistic drinking; Self-efficacy in situations characterized by a need for emotional relief."
## [112] "Factors: Compulsivity; Emotionality; Expectancy; Purposefulness."
## [113] "Subscales: Overprotective; Critical control; Appropriately supportive"
## [114] "Factors: Generalized Trauma; Distress and Self-Dysfunction."
## [115] "Scales: Mobility; Physical activity; Household activity; Dexterity; Activities of daily living; Social activity; Depression; Pain; Anxiety."
## [116] "Factors: Amotivation; External regulation; Introjected regulation; Identified regulation; Intrinsic motivation."
## [117] "Factors: Acceptance of belief and order; Value of suffering"
## [118] "Subscales: Habitual; Addictive; Reduction of Negative Affect; Pleasurable Relaxation; Stimulation; Sensorimotor Manipulation."
## [119] "Factors: Belief; Experience; Religious Practice; Individual Moral Consequences; Religious Knowledge; Social Consequences."
## [120] "Subscales: Vocational identity; Occupational information; Barriers"
## [121] "Subscales: Positive Problem Orientation (5 items); Negative Problem Orientation (10 items); Rational Problem-Solving (20 items); Impulsivity/Carelessness Style (10 items); Avoidant Style (7 items)."
## [122] "Subscales: Fundamentalism; Nearness to God."
## [123] "Factors: Sense of Physical Space; Engagement; Ecological Validity; Negative Effects"
## [124] "Factors: Oculomotor; Disorientation; Nausea. Hierarchical Factor: General Discomfort"
## [125] "Factors: Aggression; Withdrawal; Likeability."
## [126] "Subscales: Social and physical pleasure; Social expressiveness; Sexual enhancement; Power and aggression; Global positive; Relaxation; Cognitive and physical impairment; Careless unconcern"
## [127] "Factors: Relating to Others; New Possibilities; Personal Strength; Spiritual Change; and Appreciation of Life."
## [128] "Subscales: Job-seeking skills; Work adjustment skills; Job-related social skills; Money management; health and home; Community awareness"
## [129] "Factors: Individual Honour; Society and Laws about Honour; Legitimity Using Violence."
## [130] "Factors: Leadership; Aggression-Disruption; Sensitivity-Isolation; Sociability."
## [131] "Subscales: Cooperation; Self Confidence; Maturity; Job Security; Perceived Fairness"
## [132] "Factors: Surgency/Extraversion; Negative affectivity; Effortful control. Scales: Approach/Anticipation; High Intensity Pleasure; Smiling/Laughter; Activity Level; Impulsivity; Shyness; Discomfort; Fear; Anger/Frustration; Sadness; Falling Reactivity & Soothability; Inhibitory Control; Attentional Focusing; Low Intensity Pleasure; Perceptual Sensitivity."
## [133] "Factors: Lowerness (20 items); Upperness (17 items); Closeness (12 items); Distance (8 items)."
## [134] "Factors: In School; Out of School."
## [135] "Subscales: Ergonicity; Social ergonicity; Plasticity; Social plasticity; Tempo; Social tempo; Emotionality; Lie scale."
## [136] "Subscales: Emotional and verbal responsivity of mother; Avoidance of restriction and punishment; Organization of physical and temporal environment; Provision of appropriate play materials; Maternal involvement with child; Opportunities for variety in daily routine."
## [137] "Subscales: Transformational leadership; Transactional leadership; Directive leadership; Empowerment (individual); Empowerment (team); Aversive leadership."
## [138] "Scales: Physical functioning; Role functioning: emotional/behavior; Role functioning: physical; Bodily pain; General behavior; Mental health; Self esteem; General health perceptions; Parental impact: emotional; Parental impact: time; Family activities; Family cohesion; Change in health."
## [139] "Factors: Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE); Social Avoidance and Distress in General (SAD-New); and Social Avoidance Specific to New Situations or Unfamiliar Peers (SAD-G)."
## [140] "Subscales: Dressing and grooming; Arising; Eating; Walking; Hygiene; Reach; Grip; Activity."
## [141] "Scales: Peer-Group Interactions; Interactions with Faculty; Faculty Concern for Student; Academic and Intellectual Development; Institutional and Goal Commitments."
## [142] "Factors: Problem-focused; Emotion-focused; and Social-support."
## [143] "Subscales: Intimacy; Passion; Commitment."
## [144] "Subscales: Task accomplishment; Communication; Affective interaction; Interpersonal Involvement; Behavior control; Roles; Overall family functioning."
## [145] "Factors: Math Test Anxiety; Numerical Task Anxiety; Math Course Anxiety."
## [146] "Factors: Negative Emotions (5 items); Social Pressure (4 items); Physical Discomfort (3 items)."
## [147] "Subscales: Contact; Disintegration; Reintegration; Pseudo-independence; Autonomy"
## [148] "Subscales: R+; R- ."
## [149] "Subscales: Partner; Other people; Partners and others."
## [150] "Factors: Perseverance; Professionalism; Networking; Authenticity."
## [151] "Factors: Negative cognition; Negative affect/avoidance; Negative affect/aggression"
## [152] "Subscales: Emotional/informational support; Tangible support; Affectionate support; Positive social interaction"
## [153] "Subscales: Pride; Passing; Alienation; Shame."
## [154] "Factors: Consequences; Worry/Helplessness; Expectations; Medication."
## [155] "Scales: Sleep Apnea; Narcolepsy; Periodic Limb Movement Disorder; Psychiatric Sleep Disorder"
## [156] "Factors: Insomnia; Narcolepsy; Sleep Apnea; Depression."
## [157] "Subscales: Approach; Vocal Reactivity; High Pleasure; Smile/Laughter; Activity; Perceptual Sensitivity; Sadness; Distress to Limitations; Fear; Falling Reactivity; Low Pleasure; Cuddliness; Duration of Orienting; and Soothability."
## [158] "Factors: Surgency/Extraversion; Negative Affectivity; Effortful Control"
## [159] "Factors: Individual-related items; Group dynamics-related items."
## [160] "Factors: Dieting; Bulimia and food preoccupation; Oral control."
## [161] "Factors: Task conflict; Relationship conflict; Process conflict"
## [162] "Subscales: Positive Self-Statements; Negative Self-Statements"
## [163] "Subscales: Activation control; Affiliation; Attention; Fear; Frustration; High intensity pleasure; Inhibitory control; Perceptual Sensitivity; Pleasure sensitivity; Shyness. Scales: Aggression; Depressive Mood."
## [164] "Subscales: Scholastic competence; Peer acceptance; Athletic competence; Physical appearance; Behavior/conduct; Self-worth."
## [165] "Subscales: Experience; Expression."
## [166] "Dimensions: Handling emergencies; Handling work stress; Solving problems creatively; Dealing with uncertain situations; Learning; Interpersonal adaptability; Cultural adaptability; Physically oriented adaptability."
## [167] "Factors: Environmental Stress; Familial/Monetary Stress; Academic Stress."
## [168] "Factors: Involvement in and knowledge of the process; Effects on the structure and everyday functioning of the school."
## [169] "Factors: Participants’ rights knowledge; Positive appraisals of research process; Informed consent and trust in research team; Negative appraisals of research process."
## [170] "Subscales: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Psychoticism; Lie"
## [171] "Factors: Energy and dynamism; Synergy; Intrinsic; Extrinsic"
## [172] "Factors: Distress; Chronicity of event; Appraisal."
## [173] "Subscales: Intrapersonal emotional abilities; Interpersonal emotional abilities."
## [174] "Factors: Pet Avoidant Attachment; Pet Attachment Anxiety"
## [175] "Subscales: External Problems; Internal Problems; Physical Problems."
## [176] "Factors: Negativity; Distorted Egocentrism; Perfectionism; Catastrophizing-Task Exaggeration; Minimizing-Avoiding; Needless Other-Blaming; and Distorted Isolation."
## [177] "Factors: Giving emotional support; Giving instrumental support; Receiving emotional support; Receiving instrumental support."
## [178] "Subscales: Anger arousal experience; Anger-eliciting interpersonal situations."
## [179] "Subscales: General college goals; General academic orientations toward courses; Subject-specific goals in courses; Specific goal attributes, Levels of student confidence in course success."
## [180] "Subscales: Physical injury risk; Criminal risk; Health risk."
## [181] "Subscales: Social skills (Cooperation, Assertion, Responsibility, Self-control); Problem behaviors (Externalizing, Internalizing); Academic competence (teacher only)."
## [182] "Subscales: Psychasthenic depression; Cognitive depression"
## [183] "Subscales: Psychological; Physical."
## [184] "Subscales: Cognitive Irritation; Emotional Irritation."
## [185] "Factors: Thwarted Belongingness; Perceived Burdensomeness."
## [186] "Factor: Cognitive Performance. Subscales: Verbal Learning Test-Immediate Recall; Verbal Learning Test-Delayed Recall; Verbal Fluency Test; Visuomotor Tracking Test; Consonant Trigrams Test."
## [187] "Dimensions: Pleasure; Arousal; Dominance"
## [188] "Factors: Machismo; Acceptance."
## [189] "Factors: Learning Goal Orientation; Prove (Performance Goal) Orientation; Avoid (Performance Goal) Orientation."
## [190] "Subscales: Conflict (12 items); Closeness (11 items); Dependency (5 items)."
## [191] "Factors: Languid/Vigorous (LV); Flexibility/Rigidity (FR)."
## [192] "Subscales: War on Terror Human Rights Scale; Threat Perception Index; Saddam Supports Terrorism Index; Support for President Bush Index; Support for War with Iraq; Leave the UN Index."
## [193] "Subscales: Time-based work interference with family; Time-based family interference with work; Strain-based work interference with family; Strain-based family interference with work; Behavior-based work interference with family; Behavior-based family interference with work."
## [194] "Subscales: Values-Based Action (VBA); Emotional Acceptance (EA); Pain Acceptance (PA); Pain Willingness (PW)."
## [195] "Subscales: Building Internal Contacts; Maintaining Internal Contacts; Using Internal Contacts; Building External Contacts; Maintaining External Contacts; Using External Contacts."
## [196] "Factors: Dangerousness; Attribution of responsibility; Creativity; Unpredictability/incompetence; Poor prognosis."
## [197] "Factors: Disruptive Behavior; Passive Behavior."
## [198] "Factors: Emotionality; Worry; Lack of confidence; Interference."
## [199] "Subscales: Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Perceived enjoyment; Concentration; Behavioral attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Behavioral intention; Actual IM usage."
## [200] "Subscales: Verbal learning and memory; Processing speed; Attention and working memory; Verbal fluency and naming; Concept formation."
## [201] "Factors: Comprehension knowledge; Fluid reasoning; Visual processing; Long-term storage and retrieval; Perceptual speed; Working memory. Subtests: Naming Vocabulary; Word Definitions; Verbal Similarities; Verbal Comprehension; Picture Similarities; Recall of Designs; Copying; Matching Letter-Like Forms; Pattern Construction-Alternative; Recognition of Pictures; Matrices; Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning; Early Number Concepts; Recall of Objects--Immediate; Recall of Objects--Delayed; Speed of Information Processing; Rapid Naming; Digit Backward."
## [202] "Subscales: People; Programs; Process; Policies; Place"
## [203] "Factors: Academic; Performance pressure; Work-family conflicts; Bureaucratic constraints; Poor relationship with superior; Poor relationship with colleagues; Poor job prospect"
## [204] "Subscales: People; Program; Process; Policy; Place."
## [205] "Factors: Effort Commitment; Goal Striving; Reliability/Dependability; Diligence; Lethargy/Laziness; Apathy; Perseverance/Persistence; Determination; Willpower; Organization."
## [206] "Factors: People oriented listening style; Action oriented listening style; Time oriented listening style; Content oriented listening style."
## [207] "Subscales: Performance fear; Performance avoidance; Social fear; Social avoidance."
## [208] "Factors: Proactive rebelliousness; Reactive rebelliousness."
## [209] "Subscales: Self-Blame and Avoidance; Problem-focused Coping; Seeking Social-support."
## [210] "Subscales: Vulnerable Child; Angry Child; Enraged Child; Impulsive Child; Undisciplined Child; Happy Child; Compliant Surrender; Detached Protector; Detached Self-Soother; Self-Aggrandizer; Bully and Attack; Punitive Parent; Demanding Parent; Healthy Adult."
## [211] "Subscales: Deportment Index; Attention Index."
## [212] "Factors: Passive Acceptance; Revelation; Embeddedness-Emanation; Synthesis; Active Commitment."
## [213] "Modalities: direct victimization; observational (witnessing); vicarious (being told of victimization)."
## [214] "Factors: Cognitive Restructuring; Emotional Expression; Wish-Fulfilling Fantasy; Self-Blame; Information Seeking; Threat Minimization."
## [215] "Subscales: Family; School; Peers."
## [216] "Subscales: Assessment; General support; Goals; Clinical management; Twelve step facilitation; Cognitive behavioral treatment."
## [217] "Subscales: Unhealthy Offerings Scale; Healthy Offerings Scale; Healthy Preparation Scale; Healthy Preparation-Low-fat Subscale; Healthy Preparation-Lean Meat Subscale."
## [218] "Subscales: Task self-efficacy; Scheduling self-efficacy; Coping self-efficacy"
## [219] "Factors: Mental control; Mental-physical control; Depression and loss of emotional control; Optimism; Self-awareness; Lack of self-confidence; Cognitive deficit."
## [220] "Factors: Thought control; Mental imagery; Relaxation; Effort expenditure; Logical analysis; Seeking support; Venting of unpleasant emotion; Mental distraction; Disengagement/resignation; Social withdrawal"
## [221] "Factors: Social anxiety; Generalized anxiety; Separation anxiety; Specific fears."
## [222] "Subscales: Study design and data analysis; Funding a study; Presenting and reporting a study; Conceptualizing a study; Responsible research conduct; Collaborating with others; Managing project staff; Organizing a study"
## [223] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitudes; Beliefs."
## [224] "Factors: Convenience food choice; Convenience in meal preparation and cooking; Neophilia; Fresh versus convenient; Convenience in shopping; Time pressures; Individualism; Price check; Shopping list; Disposal of waste ingredients; Information check; Eating out; Whole family; Woman’s task; Stress levels; Propensity towards convenience processes; Planning; Breakdown of mealtimes; Snacking; Eating alone"
## [225] "Factors: Identity; Cause; Disability; Healing/Cure; Location; Personal Responsibility; Controllability; Mutability; Chance"
## [226] "Subscales: Need to Maintain a Balance in Life; Vulnerability to Lack of Energy; Fear of Recurrence; Fear of Taking Risks; Concealment of Symptoms; Sense of Being a Burden on Others; Relationship Concerns; Found Strength in Depression; Sense of Stigma."
## [227] "Subscales: Sharing; Caring"
## [228] "Factors: Flexible; Quiet; Comfort; Storage."
## [229] "Factors: Childhood SRBD; snoring; excessive daytime sleepiness; inattentive/hyperactive behavior."
## [230] "Domains: personal vocational goals; goal-related barriers; barriers- related management"
## [231] "Subscales: Enhancing the meaningfulness of the work; Fostering participation in decision making; Expressing confidence in high performance; Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints"
## [232] "Factors: Content; Dependability; and Ease of use loading on one second-order USEA factor."
## [233] "Factors: Team dynamics; Team acquaintance; Instructor support"
## [234] "Factors:: Enhancing safety climate and attitude; Promoting effective safety-related communication; Streamlining the safety procedures; Ensuring adequate safety training."
## [235] "Subscales: Probability of success; Anxiety; Interest; Challenge"
## [236] "Factors: Reliability and Social Functioning of adults with ADHD; Malingering and Misuse of Medication; Ability to Take Responsibility; Norm-violating and Externalizing Behavior; Consequences of Diagnostic Disclosure; and Etiology of adult ADHD."
## [237] "Factors: Job Placement, Consultation, and Assessment (Subfactors: Job Development and Placement Services; Vocational Consultation and Services for Employers; Disability Management; Assessment and Evaluation); Case Management and Community Resources (Subfactors: Mental Health and Health Care Advocacy; Case Management and Utilization of Community Resources); Individual, Group, and Family Counseling and Evidence-Based Practice (Subfactors: Individual, Group, and Family Counseling; Evidence-Based Practice); Medical, Functional, and Psychosocial Aspects of Disability."
## [238] "Factors: Ethnic Identity (12 items); Perceived Discrimination (9 items); Mainstream Comfort (6 items); Social Affiliation (5 items)."
## [239] "Factors: Involuntariness; Effortlessness"
## [240] "Subscales: Withdrawal; Self-Care; Compliance; and Antisocial."
## [241] "Subscales: Purposeful live; Valued life; Accomplished life; Principled life; Exciting life."
## [242] "Dimensions: Information gathering; Information processing; Locus of control; Effort invested in the process; Procrastination; Speed of making the final decision; Consultation with others; Dependence on others; Desire to please others; Aspiration for an ideal occupation; and Willingness to compromise."
## [243] "Factors: Domestic chores; Leisure/work; Outdoor activities."
## [244] "Factors: Beliefs Against Fighting; Fighting is Sometimes Necessary; Beliefs Supporting Reactive Aggression; Beliefs Supporting Proactive Aggression."
## [245] "Factors: Hopelessness; Perceived Lack of Social Support; Active Suicidal Thoughts and Plans"
## [246] "Subscales: State Anger; Trait Anger Temperament; Trait Anger Reaction; Anger Expression/Anger In; Anger Expression/Anger Out; Anger Expression/Anger Control."
## [247] "Subscales: Attention to Detail; Attention Switching; Communication; Imagination; Social"
## [248] "Subscales: Hyperactivity; Attention."
## [249] "Factors: Esteem/emotional support; Physical comfort support; Informational support; Tangible support."
## [250] "Subscales: Reappraisal; Suppression."
## [251] "Factors: Economic value—Monetary savings; Economic value—Efficiency; Functional value—Convenience; Emotional value—Emotions and Experiences; Symbolic value—Altruism; and Symbolic value—Esteem."
## [252] "Subscale: Awareness."
## [253] "Factors: Cardiovascular; Sleep/fatigue; Mood/cognition; Perceptual problems; Attention/memory; Gastrointestinal; Urinary; Sexual function; Miscellany."
## [254] "Subscales: Affection; Punitiveness; Control"
## [255] "Subscales: Parental affection; Parental punitiveness; Parental control; Parental lax discipline"
## [256] "Factors (Sub-factors): Physical Reasons (Stress Reduction; Pleasure; Physical Desirability; Experience Seeking); Goal Attainment Reasons (Resources; Social Status; Revenge; Utilitarian); Emotional Reasons (Love and Commitment; Expression); Insecurity Reasons (Self-Esteem Boost; Duty/Pressure; Mate Guarding)."
## [257] "Subscales: Mental Functioning, 4 items; Self-control, 4 items] Emotional Regulation, 4 items; Physical Functioning, 4 items; and Social Integration, 4 items."
## [258] "Subscales: Mind Wandering: Deliberate (MW-D); Mind Wandering: Spontaneous (MW-S)."
## [259] "Subscales: Functional; Emotional; Physical"
## [260] "Factors: Practical support; Informational support; Miscellaneous"
## [261] "Factors: Memorizing; Testing; Calculating and practicing; Increase of knowledge; Applying; Understanding; Seeing in a new way"
## [262] "Factors: High UBIS; Low UBIS"
## [263] "Factors: Reappraisal; Suppression; Externalizing behavioral strategies"
## [264] "Factors: Sectarian antisocial behavior; Substance use; Theft; Violent crimes"
## [265] "Factors: Professional autonomy-independence; Diverse work; Ongoing self-development; Opportunities for emotional intimacy; Professional-financial recognition and success; Feelings of effectiveness"
## [266] "Factors: Support structures; Engagement and empowerment; Patient care transitions; Team communication"
## [267] "Factors: Preoccupation; Overuse; Immersion; Social isolation; Interpersonal conflicts; Withdrawal"
## [268] "Subscales: External Attributions; Internal Attributions."
## [269] "Domains: Treatment engagement; Housing; Psychiatric medication use; Psychiatric hospitalization and ER use; High-risk behaviors; Substance abuse; Forensic involvement."
## [270] "Subscales: Functional; Emotional; Physical."
## [271] "Scales: Left–Right beliefs; Political Cynicism; Antiracism; Libertarian- Authoritarian; Gender Equality."
## [272] "Subscales: Integrative interaction; Coworker relationship; Socialization; Team Values; Team avoidance value; Cooperative goal interdependence; Team Open Discussion; No Relationship Values."
## [273] "Factors: Group-based shame components; Empathic shame components."
## [274] "Subscales: Peer Modeling (8 items); Social Reinforcement (11 items); Peer Attributions 8 items)."
## [275] "Subscales: Overall Satisfaction; Domain Satisfaction; Positive Emotions; Negative Emotions."
## [276] "Factors: Computer self-efficacy (3 items); Perceived usefulness (4 items); Perceived ease of use (4 items); Behavioral intention to use (2 items)."
## [277] "Subscales: Environment structuring; Goal setting; Time management; Help seeking; Task strategies; Self evaluation."
## [278] "Subscales (as found by Buckner et al. in 2012): Problem Use; Pathological Use"
## [279] "Factors: Problem-solving; Planning and evaluation; Translation; Person knowledge; Attention."
## [280] "Factors: Text-based Processing Factor; Knowledge Access Factor."
## [281] "Factors: Organizational communication; Communication climate; Message characteristics; Communication structure; Group bond; Respect."
## [282] "Factors: Emotional Intolerance; Entitlement; Discomfort Intolerance; Achievement."
## [283] "Scales: Potential Absorptive Capacity (Acquisition; Assimilation); Realized Absorptive Capacity (Transformation; Exploitation)."
## [284] "Factors: Driving Avoidance; Riding Avoidance. Subscales: General avoidance; Traffic avoidance; Riding avoidance; Weather avoidance."
## [285] "Factors: Depersonalization (7 items); Emotional Exhaustion (11 items); Personal Accomplishment (8 items)."
## [286] "Subscales: Identification; Comprehension; Expression; Regulation; Utilization."
## [287] "Subscales: Students' Perceptions of Teaching; Students' Perceptions of Teachers; Students' Academic Self-Perceptions; Students' Perceptions of Atmosphere; Students' Social Self-Perceptions."
## [288] "Subscales: Cognition; Self; Daily life and autonomy; Social relationships; Emotions; Physical problems."
## [289] "Subscales: Attitudes; Subjective Norms; Perceived Behavioural Control; Intentions."
## [290] "Factors: Technology; Support; Disability; Communication; Upbringing; Work History; Language; Looking for Work; Networking; Job Search Strategy; Targeted Job Search; Access and Support."
## [291] "Subscales: Physical abuse; Threatening behavior; Sexual abuse; Relational abuse; Verbal/emotional abuse."
## [292] "Factors: Fair and supportive leadership behavior; Affective organizational commitment; Normative organizational commitment; Affective supervisory commitment; Organizational citizenship behavior."
## [293] "Factors: Good verbal expression and fluency; Habitual use of imagery; Concern with correct use of words; Self-reported reading difficulties; Use of images to solve problems; Vividness of dreams, daydreams and imagination."
## [294] "Factors: Serious Harm Reduction (SHR); Stopping/Limiting Drinking (SLD)Manner of Drinking (MOD)."
## [295] "Subscales: Somatoform Problem; Psychosis; Psychosexual Problem; Adjustment Problem; Anxiety Problem."
## [296] "Factors: Tendency toward additional failure; Tendency toward reform."
## [297] "Subscales: Edibles; Tangibles; Activities; Sensory."
## [298] "Dimensions: Meaning and Importance of Work; Career Preparation. Scales: Career Planning Attitudes (Subscales: Steps taken; Factors considered; Preferred profession; Job search); Attitudes of Exploration for a career (Subscales: People and resources consulted; Jobs done)."
## [299] "Factors: Product; Regulatory; Attitudes and beliefs; Lifestyle; Ethnocentrism; Pre-purchase evaluation; Purchase intention."
## [300] "Factors: Awareness of symptoms associated with activity/energy; Awareness of having a disorder; Awareness of self-esteem and feelings of pleasure; Awareness of social functioning and relationships."
## [301] "Subscales: Political action; Physical action/Eco-management; Consumer and economic action; Individual and public persuasion."
## [302] "Subscales: Individual Attraction to the Group-Task (4 items), Individual Attraction to the Group-Social (5 items), Group Integration-Task (5 items), and Group Integration-Social (4 items)."
## [303] "Subscales: Conflict management; Openness; Motivational; Preventative; Assurance; Support; Social network strategies."
## [304] "Subscales: Awareness; Screening and knowledge; and Prevention and control."
## [305] "Subscales: Positive past; Negative past; Hedonistic past; Fatalistic past; Future."
## [306] "Factors: General factor; Participation in the Local Community; Social Agency or Proactivity in a Social Context; Feelings of Trust and Safety; Neighborhood Connections; Family and Friends Connections; Tolerance of Diversity; Value of Life; Work Connections."
## [307] "Factors: General irrationality/rationality; Rationally worded beliefs; Self-rating."
## [308] "Factors: Properties of Nursing Profession, Preference to Nursing Profession, and General Position of Nursing Profession"
## [309] "Factors: “Hardness in communicating with the dying and her/his relatives\"; “Avoiding death and the dying”."
## [310] "Factors: Computer enjoyment (16 items); Computer anxiety (11 items)."
## [311] "Factors: Independence; Physical; Emotion; Social exclusion; Social inclusion; Treatment."
## [312] "Factors: Behavior Management (BM); Instructional Management (IM)."
## [313] "Subscales: Meaning; Competence; Self-Determination; Impact."
## [314] "Subscales: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence."
## [315] "Subscales: Aggressive suppression; Behavioral distraction; Cognitive distraction; Reappraisal; Social avoidance; Worry."
## [316] "Subscales: Initiating Imagination; Conceiving Imagination; Transforming Imagination"
## [317] "Factors: Supervisory support; Administrative support; Professionalism; Collegiality; Organizational ethos; Autonomy; Beliefs about parents."
## [318] "Subscales: Depression; Anxiety; Stress; Non-discriminate."
## [319] "Subscales: Emotional Distress; Familial Distress; Social Distress; Spiritual Distress; Activities of Daily Living; Medical Distress."
## [320] "Components: Learning is a Social Activity to which Children have a Right; Correct Behaviours in the Right Environment; Experience and the Necessity for Special Places and Teachers; Special Teachers and Small Classes."
## [321] "Factors: Lack of time-management skills (Mangelndes Zeitmanagement); Lack of self motivation (Mangelnde Selbstmotivation); Lack of stamina (Mangelndes Durchhaltevermogen); Lack of studio competence (Mangelnde Studierkompetenz); Lack of self-confidence (Mangelndes Selbstvertrauen); Perfectionism (Perfektionismus); Angst; Arousal-Procrastination; Uncertainty regarding studies (Unsicherheit bzgl. des Studiums); Elder success despite pushing (Früherer Erfolg trotz Aufschieben); Aversive task (Aversive Aufgabe); Elaborate task (Aufwändige Aufgabe); and Unfavorable faculty behavior (Ungünstiges Dozentenverhalten)."
## [322] "Factors: Fear/Malaise; Communication; Relationship; Care of the family; Family as Caring; Active Care."
## [323] "Factors Personal Distress; Inability of Empathy."
## [324] "Factors: Desirability; Distance; Concreteness; Affect of Message; Congruity; Vocal Intensity. Scales: Frequency; Duration; Stimulus; Desirability; Distance; Concreteness; Affect of the message; Congruity; Vocal intensity; Topic."
## [325] "Factors: Therapist Expertise (12 items); Therapist Warmth (11 items); Therapist Directiveness (9 items); Task-Oriented Activities (13 items); Experiential/Insight-Oriented Activities (16 items)."
## [326] "Factors: Conscious Motor Processing; Movement Self-consciousness."
## [327] "There were 12 main tasks and 17 sub-tasks in the final instrument."
## [328] "Subscales: Teamwork, roles, and responsibilities; Patient-centeredness; Interprofessional bias; Diversity and ethics; Community-centeredness."
## [329] "Factors: Cognitive-affective; Somatic"
## [330] "Factors: Clarity of vision; Expectations; Near vision; Far vision; Diurnal fluctuations; Activity limitations; Glare; Symptoms; Dependence on correction; Worry; Suboptimal correction; Appearance; Satisfaction with correction."
## [331] "Factors: Emotional; Physical; Social."
## [332] "Factors: Quiescent Silence (QS); Prosocial Silence (PS); Opportunistic Silence (OS); Acquiescent Silence (AS)."
## [333] "Subscales: Psychosocial; Function."
## [334] "Subscales: Psychosocial; Function."
## [335] "Factors: Benevolent Humor; Corrective Humor."
## [336] "Factors: Sensitivity in communication; Goal setting; Information seeking; Mediation of interests; Cultural identity reflection; Socializing."
## [337] "Factors (Components): Feelings before SIB (Negative Emotions before SIB; Positive Emotions before SIB); Feelings after SIB (Negative Emotions after SIB; Positive Emotions after SIB)."
## [338] "Subscales: Belonging/Social interest; Going along; Taking charge; Wanting recognition; Being cautious."
## [339] "Component: Sensory seeking; Sensory avoiding; Taste/smell processing; Low registration; Touch processing (sensitivity); Touch processing (being restrained); Touch processing (component 5 & 6 combined); Environmental awareness; Body awareness/posture."
## [340] "Scales: Customer orientation; Competitor orientation; Interfunctional coordination; Creativity; Innovation implementation; Task interdependence; Outcome interdependence; Innovative organizational culture; Behavior-based supervision; Market dynamism; Technological turbulence; Competitive intensity; Sales performance."
## [341] "Factors: Physical Symptoms; Emotional Symptoms; Communication/Practical Issues."
## [342] "Factors: Sharing; Shopping; Real-time updating; Accessing online content; Gaming/gambling."
## [343] "Factors: Religious Norms; Doctrine; Authority of Leaders."
## [344] "Subscales: General Pursuit; Aggression"
## [345] "Factors: Observing; Describing; Acting with awareness; Non-judging of inner experience; Non-reactivity to inner experience"
## [346] "Factors: Self-referent competency (4 items); Other-referent competency (4 items); Teacher-generated excitement (3 items); Activity-generated excitement (5 items); Peer interaction (2 items); and Parental encouragement (2 items)."
## [347] "Factors: Psychosocial; Environmental; Cognitive; and Physical."
## [348] "Factors: Compulsivity; Efforts; Distress"
## [349] "Subscales: Trust vs. Mistrust (10 items); Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (8 items); Initiative vs. Guilt (10 items); Industry vs. Inferiority (11 items); Identity vs. Role Confusion (19 items); Intimacy vs. Isolation (8 items), and Generativity vs. Stagnation (10 items); Social desirability (17 items)."
## [350] "Scales: Task-Involving (Subscales: Cooperative Learning; Important role; Effort/Improvement); Ego-Involving (Subscales: Punishment for Mistakes; Unequal Recognition; Intra-team Member Rivalry)."
## [351] "Factors: Opposition to Equality; Dominance Group."
## [352] "Subscales: Abstract Reasoning; Verbal Reasoning; Spatial Reasoning; Numerical Reasoning; and Concrete/Mechanical Reasoning."
## [353] "Factors: Domestic work; Sibling care."
## [354] "Factors: Service environment; Employee service; Service convenience; Hedonic service"
## [355] "Factors: Positive Behaviors; Transgression; Aggressive Behaviors; Lapse."
## [356] "Factors: Somatic Symptoms and Autonomic Arousal (4 items); Symptoms of Tension and Distress (3 items); Mental State Symptoms: Fears and Concerns (3 items)."
## [357] "Factors: Transgression; Attention violation; Aggressive behavior."
## [358] "Factors: Inductive discipline; Coercive discipline."
## [359] "Factors: shared responsibility; emotional response; loyalty proneness; willingness to pay a price premium; attitudinal response; internal locus of control; external locus of control/power of others; free time; purchase intentions"
## [360] "Factors: Fashion; Time poverty; Popularity."
## [361] "Dimensions: Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Attitudes toward using technology; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Self-efficacy; Anxiety; Behavioral intention to use the system."
## [362] "Factors: Grew Up with Technology; Comfortable with Multitasking; Reliant on Graphics for Communication; Thrive on Instant Gratifications and Rewards."
## [363] "Subscales: Religion and Positive Reframing; Distraction; External Support."
## [364] "Factors: Autonomy; Innovativeness; Risk Taking; Competitive Aggressiveness."
## [365] "Subscales: Somatic complaints; Depressive affect; Positive affect; Interpersonal problems."
## [366] "Factors: Participation limitation; Stigma; Behavior."
## [367] "Factors: Anxiety; Depression."
## [368] "Factors: Labor avoidance; Conflict; Non-emphasis on achievement."
## [369] "Factors: Reading enjoyment; Reading for interest; Competition; Self-concept."
## [370] "Factors: Dissociative amnesia; Absorption and imaginative involvement; Depersonalization and derealization; Passive influence."
## [371] "Constructs: Attitudes; Subjective Norms; Perceived Behavioral Control; Moral Obligation; Behavioral Intentions."
## [372] "Factors: Attention/concentration; Working memory; Self-monitoring; Theory of mind; Shifting; Impulsivity/inhibition; Planning/initiation; Emotional regulation."
## [373] "Factors: Relationship with self; Relationship with others; Relationship with God; Facing death."
## [374] "Factors: Fear of darkness and loneliness; Fear of the unknown; Fear of failure and criticism; Animal fears; Fear of danger and death; Fear of minor injury"
## [375] "Factors: Innovation Differentiation; Marketing Differentiation; Low Cost Leadership; Quality Differentiation; Service Differentiation"
## [376] "Factors: Satisfaction; Cohesion; Consensus."
## [377] "Factors: Preoccupation with thinness; Food preoccupation; Dieting; Social pressure to eat; Purging."
## [378] "Factors: Intrinsic knowledge quality; Contextual knowledge quality; Representational knowledge quality; Accessible knowledge quality; Actionable knowledge quality."
## [379] "Subscales: Psychosocial function; speech function."
## [380] "Factors: Activity avoidance; Somatic focus."
## [381] "Subscales: Cannabis; MDMA (Ecstasy); Amphetamines; Cocaine; Hallucinogens."
## [382] "Subscales: Role adequacy; Role support; Job satisfaction; Role-specific self-esteem; Role legitimacy."
## [383] "Factors: Women are pushing too much; Labor is unfair to women; and Discrimination is no longer a problem."
## [384] "Factors: Team creative thinking (thinking interaction; thinking complementation; thinking integration); Team creative action (creative collaboration; creative knowledge sharing; creative inspiration); Team creative outcome (creative fluency; creative quality; creative efficiency)."
## [385] "Primary Factors: Social-Entrepreneurial; Virtual Life; Domestic Relaxation; Music; Vacation; Culture; Outdoor; Animals; Natural Relaxation; Games & Puzzles; Wellness; Household; Design-Artisan; Social-Supporting; Cooking & Baking; Information-Building; Intellectual-Creative; Religion & Spirituality; Finance; Automobiles; and Sports. Secondary Factors: Receptive-Recreational Interests; Active-Recreational Interests; Cherish-Forming Interests; Intellectual Interests; and Competitive Interests."
## [386] "Factors: Communication Apprehension and Understanding and Communication Apprehension and Confidence."
## [387] "Subscales: The agents' motivation of willingness to work with drinkers; Their expectations of work satisfaction with these clients; The way they felt about the adequacy of their knowledge and skills in working with these clients; The extent lo which they felt they had the right to work with drinkers; and Their self-esteem in this specific task."
## [388] "The bifactorial model with standardized factor weights indicated a Positive Factor, Negative Factor, and a Global Self-esteem Factor."
## [389] "There are three factors: Life of Pleasure, Life of Engagement, and Life of Meaning."
## [390] "Factors: (1) Vocational Exploration, (2) Investment, (3) Diffusion, (4) Foreclosure, trend in excluding choices and (5) Foreclosure, in relation to the significant."
## [391] "Factor 1: Comfort when interacting with someone who has BPD (comprising the scales Positive Attitudes and Negative Attitudes) and Factor 2: Positives perceptions about BPD (comprising the scales Caretaking Necessity and False Perceptions about BPD)."
## [392] "Factors: Corresponding with Organization, Professional Communicating, Professional Learning, Emotion Regulating, and Career Transforming."
## [393] "Factors: Physical fatigue, emotion numb, cognitive exhaustion, interpersonal craving, and value confusing."
## [394] "Scales: First-Person scale (15 items); Third-Person scale (15 items)."
## [395] "Factors: Behavior Commitment, Group Identity Maintaining, In-group Favoritism, Group Psychological Belonging, and Reality Relevance."
## [396] "Factors: Self Model and Other Model. Subfactors: General self, Interpersonal self, Goodwill, Availability, and Support of other."
## [397] "Factors: Extroverted-Introverted; Practical-Imaginative; Thinking-Feeling; and Organized-Flexible."
## [398] "Factors: Visionary Influence; Selflessness/Abnegation; Organizational Stewardship."
## [399] "Factor: Cognitive reappraisal; Expressive suppression."
## [400] "Factor 1: Unsafe road crossing behavior; Factor 2: Dangerous playing in the road; Factor 3: Planned protective behavior; and Factor 4: Safe to walk at night (the short version consists of the first three factors)."
## [401] "Factors: Doctor-patient relationship; Medical services; and Non-medical services."
## [402] "Factors: Ability to recognize emotions; Ability to grasp causal relationships; Weighting capacity; Capacity for decentralization"
## [403] "Scales: Health planning; Financial planning; Lifestyle planning; Psychosocial planning."
## [404] "Factor 1: Subject-related humor; Factor 2: Humor without reference to the learning object; Factor 3: Self-deprecating humor; and Factor 4: Aggressive humor."
## [405] "Subscales: Motivation Beliefs; Regulation of Motivation Strategies. Factors: Outcome-Approach Goals; Value of Utility-Interest Task; Self-efficacy; Outcome-Avoidance Goals; Regulation by Situational Interest; Result Goals Regulation; Self-report; Structuring Context; Value Regulation."
## [406] "Factors: Depressive affect; Positive affect; Somatic; Interpersonal."
## [407] "Factors: Prevention; Promotion."
## [408] "Factors: Perceived infectability and Germ aversion."
## [409] "Factors: Self-Kindness; Self-Judgment; Common Humanity; Isolation; Mindfulness; and Over-Identification."
## [410] "Factors: Symptom; Continuity; Tolerance; Loss of control; Reduction of other activities; Time; Intent effect."
## [411] "Subscales: Anxiety; Avoidance. Additional subscales in clinician-administered version: Fear of social interaction; Fear of performance; Avoidance of social interaction; Avoidance of performance."
## [412] "Factors: Hostile gestures; Illegal conduct; Presence of the forces of the order; Slow driving; Discourtesy; and Blocked traffic."
## [413] "Subscales: Socioeconomic level; Physical characteristics; Social issues; Services; Cohesion and social integration"
## [414] "Factors: Existential alienation; Dysfunction; Poor self-care; and Contradictory relationship."
## [415] "Scales: Paid Employment; Caregiving; Informal Helping; Volunteering."
## [416] "Factors: Excuse; Absenteeism; Cheating; Negative; Spending"
## [417] "Subscales: Oculomotor; Disorientation; Nausea."
## [418] "Subscales: Instrumental social support; Emotional social support."
## [419] "Factors: Focus on People; Focus on Results."
## [420] "Factors: Prosocial; Interpersonal; Prestige; Comfort; Professional Growth; Self-Actualization; and Autonomy."
## [421] "Factors: Mastery; Delay-approximation; Performance-avoidance; Social approval."
## [422] "Battery domains: Executive attention; Executive category switching; Working memory; Processing speed; Episodic memory; Language pronunciation; Auditory word-visual picture matching."
## [423] "Subscales: Negative affectivity (NA); Social inhibition (SI)."
## [424] "Anxiety response factors: cognitive; physiological; motor. Anxiety situations: assessment; interpersonal; phobia type; everyday life"
## [425] "Factors: Depression; Anxiety; and Positive Well-Being."
## [426] "Factors: Anxiety of evaluation; Anxiety of request for help; Anxiety of interpretation."
## [427] "Factors: Intensity: Somatic anxiety; cognitive anxiety; self-confidence; Direction: Direction anxiety; Self-confidence."
## [428] "Factors: Prototypical Respect; Idolatry; Awe"
## [429] "Social Impairment Domains: Home Life; Friendships; Classroom Learning; Leisure Activities."
## [430] "Five factors describe the supports and barriers scales (Risk justification, HPD constraints, hazard recognition, behavior motivation, and safety culture)."
## [431] "Factors: Personal; Social."
## [432] "Subscales: Body Image; Body contact; Endurance; Satisfaction; Balance; Breath; Aversion; Tension; Physical discomfort; Distance/removed; Physical distance/Limits."
## [433] "Subscales: To wash; Check; Organize; Obsessions; Hoard; Mental Neutralization."
## [434] "Subscales: Parental physical abuse; Parental verbal abuse; Parental nonviolent emotional abuse; Sexual abuse; Emotional neglect; Physical neglect; Witnessed physical violence towards parents; Witnessed physical violence towards siblings; Peer emotional violence; Peer physical violence"
## [435] "Factors: Accomplishment; Competency; Self-Confidence; Healthy."
## [436] "Subscales: General burden; Eating duration; Eating desire; Symptoms; Food selection; Communication; Fear of eating; Social functioning; Mental health; Sleep; Fatigue."
## [437] "Subscales: Student Perceptions of Advising; Student Ideals of Advising."
## [438] "Factors: Mastery-avoidance; Mastery-approach; Performance-approach; and Performance-avoidance."
## [439] "Factors: Basic module dental treatment anxiety; Phobia module; Stimulus module."
## [440] "Factors: Control; Consequences; Coping Behavior."
## [441] "Factors: Sharing; Caring."
## [442] "Scales: Pain; Function."
## [443] "Factors: Psychosocial; Indulgent; Sensorimotor; Stimulation; Addictive; and Automatic."
## [444] "Sensemaking processes: Number of causes; Recognition of critical causes; Constraint breadth; Constraint criticality; Forecast time frame; Forecast valence"
## [445] "Factors: Blind obedience; Inner acceptance."
## [446] "Factors: Performance and Power; Planning; Pro-activity."
## [447] "Subscales: Rote-learning scale; Comprehension scale; Application scale; Independence scale; Individualization scale."
## [448] "Factors: Subtle Enamor Style; Direct Enamor Style."
## [449] "Factors: Mastery; Harmony; Hierarchy; Egalitarianism; Conservatism; Autonomy."
## [450] "Subscales: Satisfaction with friendships; Intimacy; Satisfaction with family; and Social activities."
## [451] "Factors: Verbal violence; physical violence; violence against oneself."
## [452] "Subscales: Substance abuse; Mental health"
## [453] "Factors: Solving and Expressing Affective Experiences; External Locused Cognitive Style; Tendency to Somatize Affections; Imaginary Life and Visualization; Acting Impulsively; Affective factor; Cognitive factor."
## [454] "Factors: Use of Application (App); Update of App; Withdrawal; Salience; Social Impairment; Somatic Discomfort."
## [455] "Factors: Threat; Loss; Challenge."
## [456] "Factors: Beliefs positive in psychotherapy; Negative Beliefs in Psychotherapy."
## [457] "Factors: Use, abuse and addiction to the smartphone and its applications (Component 1); Personality traits (Component 2); Monetary expenditure in mobile applications and games (Component 3)"
## [458] "Factors: Utilization-possibility of failure; Fearfulness toward failure."
## [459] "Subscales (Factors): Optimal commitment (Enthusiasm; Perseverance; Reconciliation); Over-commitment (Excessive enthusiasm; Compulsive persistence; Perception of neglect); Under-commitment (Lack of interest; Lack of energy; Perception of invasion)."
## [460] "Subscales: Competence; Belonging."
## [461] "Subscales: Body perception; Smell/taste; Hearing; Sensory seeking; Multiple stimuli; Pain/temperature."
## [462] "Factors: Shame Beliefs; Knowing identity of voice(s) and privacy violations"
## [463] "Factors: Rape victim extension myths; Rapist extension myths; Chastity and other-oriented myths; Reflection myths."
## [464] "Global 2nd-order factor: Emotional Impact of Trauma. First-Order Factors: Avoidance; Intrusion; Hyperactivation."
## [465] "Dimensions: personal characteristics and qualities; hobbies and passions; social or environmental resources"
## [466] "Factors: Competence; Autonomy; Social affiliation."
## [467] "Factors: Individual anticipation of materials and references; Individual environmental control; Individual tracking and monitoring; Collective evaluation of content; Individual evaluation of method; Collective decisions for method change"
## [468] "Factors: Purpose-based motivation; Hedonistic motivation."
## [469] "Subscales: Institutional practices; Technical aspects of data protection; Data protection law; Data protection strategies."
## [470] "Factors: Objective Style; Planning Style; Creative style."
## [471] "Factors: Secure-based behaviour; emotional self-regulation"
## [472] "Factors: Positive academic; Positive emotional; Negative academic; Negative emotional."
## [473] "Subscales: Family; Significant Others; Friends."
## [474] "Subscales: Compliance with expected maternal behavior; Positive emotional involvement difficulty; Health Behavior."
## [475] "Factors: Care; overprotection; encouragement of autonomy and independence"
## [476] "Factors: Excessive use; Dependence; Withdrawal; Avoidance of reality."
## [477] "Factors/Subfactors: Physical symptoms (Tension/restlessness; Somatic/autonomic); Social anxiety (humiliation/rejection; public performance); Separation anxiety; Hazard avoidance (perfectionism; anxious coping)"
## [478] "Factors: Emoción (Emotion); Familia (Family); Indiferencia (Indifference); Cultura (Culture); Efecto del alimento (Effect of food)."
## [479] "Scale (Factors): Escala de Competencias Emprendedoras (CE; Entrepreneurial Competencies Scale: Self-efficacy and Proactivity; Assertiveness and Emotional Control; Participatory Leadership; Coping with Risks and Difficulties. Escala de Competencias de Gestión de la Carrera (CGC; Management Skills Scale Career): Decision-Making Skills; Management Skills of the Vital Professional Project."
## [480] "Factors: Named aggressor; Victim; Witness."
## [481] "Factors: Openness; Temperance; Humanity and Justice; Transcendence; Wisdom and Knowledge."
## [482] "Factors: Non-motivation; Identified regulation; Integrated regulation; Inward mirroring; Instrinsic motivation."
## [483] "Factors: Physical cause; Objective acquisition; Emotional cause; Loyalty."
## [484] "Factors: Positive parenting behavior; Involvement; (Poor) Monitoring; Inconsistent discipline; Corporal punishment; Authoritarian parenting; Responsible parenting."
## [485] "Subscales: Physical wellbeing; Social/family wellbeing; Emotional wellbeing; Functional wellbeing; Additional concerns."
## [486] "Factors: Oral Health; Functional Well-Being; Socio-Emotional Well-Being."
## [487] "Factor: Total (General) Behavior. Subscales: Social Behavior; Academic Behavior; Emotional Behavior"
## [488] "Subscales: Restraint (RS); Eating concern (EC); Weight concern (WC); Shape concern (SC)."
## [489] "Factors: Self in relation to others; Behavior that demonstrates respect for others; Individual self-perceived value; Perceived value from others."
## [490] "Factors: Social environment; Job and household duties; Psychological distress; Sexual relationships; Extended family relationship; Relationships with family and significant others; Health orientation care."
## [491] "Factors: Intimidating behaviors (bullying); Bullying victimization (bullied); Active bystander (defending the victim); Extreme bullying/Cyber bullying; Passive bystander."
## [492] "Factors: Interact with strangers (Interactuar con desconocidos); Express positive feelings (Expresar sentimientos positivos); Face criticism (Afrontar las críticas); Interact with the people that attract me (Interactuar con las personas que me atraen); Keep calm in the face of criticism (Mantener la calma ante las críticas); Speak in public/Interact with superiors (Hablar en público/Interactuar con superiores); Face situations of ridicule (Afrontar situaciones de hacer el ridículo); Defend your own rights (Defender los propios derechos); Apologize (Pedir disculpas); Reject requests (Rechazar peticiones)."
## [493] "Factors: Nonreacting against internal experiences, Nonjudging internal experiences, Acting with awareness, Describing own experiences; Observing."
## [494] "Factors: Physical aggressiveness (Agresividad física); Verbal aggressiveness (Agresividad verbal); Go-to (Ira); Hostility (Hostilidad)."
## [495] "Factors: Working excessively; Working compulsively"
## [496] "Factors: Self-perception; Relationship model; Contact design."
## [497] "Factors: Religious; Artistic; Academic; Social; Physical."
## [498] "Domains: Pre-Academic Abilities; Mastery Motivation; Executive Functions; Self-Regulated Inhibition; Mental set shifting."
## [499] "Dimensions: Achievement; Benevolence"
## [500] "Factors: Awareness of activity safety and environment; Awareness of physical functions; Awareness of medication; Awareness of cognitive behavior"
## [501] "Factor: Self-Efficacy for Therapeutic Mode Use."
## [502] "Factors: Motives; Lack of internal support (Barrier); Lack of external support (Barrier); Lack of resources (Barrier)."
## [503] "Clusters: Confidence; Tolerance; Realism; Idealism"
## [504] "Scales: Approach; Avoidance."
## [505] "Factors: Collectivism/Individualism; Power Distance; Uncertainty Avoidance; Masculinity/Femininity"
## [506] "Residential; Position; Interpersonal-Physical; Interpersonal-Social"
## [507] "Scales: OH Symptom Assessment; OH Daily Activity Scale."
## [508] "Subscales: Subjective well-being; Material well-being; Job well-being; Well-being with the partner."
## [509] "Domains: Musculoskeletal pain; chronic pain; pain in connection with fluctuation; nocturnal pain; oro-facial pain; discoloration; edema/swelling; radicular pain."
## [510] "Dimensions: Surgery/hospital stay; Future recovery; Medical Care Needs; Other Care Needs; Probe Duration; Food Intake; Physical Activities; Physical Problems; Social or Emotional Problems"
## [511] "Subscales: Brooding; Reflection."
## [512] "Prior stressors; Childhood family functioning; Preparedness; Difficult living and working environment; Perceived threat; Combat experiences; Aftermath of battle; Nuclear, biological, and chemical exposures; Family stressors (new scale not on original DRRI); Concerns about life and family disruptions; Unit social support; Deployment support from family/friends (new scale not on original DRRI); General harassment; Sexual harassment; Postdeployment stressors; Postdeployment social support; and Postdeployment family functioning (new scale not on original DRRI)."
## [513] "Ratings: Pleasure; Arousal; Dominance"
## [514] "Factors: Psychological burden; Long-term care affirmation; Financial burden; Disturbance of life due to long-term care"
## [515] "Subscales: Instructional Strategies (IS); Behavior Management Strategies (BMS)."
## [516] "Subscales: Belief in Supernatural Forces (BSF); Belief in the Influence of God and Destiny (BIGD); Belief in Aliens, Monsters, and Consipiracies (BAMC); and Belief in Consciousness Beyond the Body (BCB)."
## [517] "Factors (occupational therapists' first and second rating and speech therapists' second rating): Attention; Psychomotor retardation; Ability to focus on a task. Factors: (speech pathologists' first rating): Attention; Psychomotor retardation."
## [518] "Domains: sensorimotor; feeding/eating; sleep; speech/language; cognition; social-emotional; attachment"
## [519] "Factors: Inclusive; Empowered"
## [520] "Factors: (1) Personal confidence and hope, (2) Willingness to ask for help, (3) Goal and success orientation, (4) Reliance on others, and (5) No domination by symptoms."
## [521] "Scales: Asthma Symptoms; Treatment Problems; Worry; Communications."
## [522] "Listening comprehension; Morpheme generation (i.e., complete phrases by saying missing parts of the phrases)."
## [523] "Subscales: Self-Awareness; Self-Management; Social Awareness; Relationship Skills; Responsible Decision Making; Motivation to Learn; Reading; Mathematics"
## [524] "Factors: Depression; Restlessness; Anxiety; Sleep disturbances; Psychotic; Reduced self-care skills."
## [525] "Factors: Hyperactivity; Irritability; Lethargy, Social Withdrawal; Stereotypic Behavior"
## [526] "CONDF, Training (reflective construct); DORG, Organizational performance (superordinate multidimensional construct); DORGEC, Economic performance; DORGS, Satisfaction performance; ACAP, absorptive capacity (superordinate construct); AD, Acquisition; AS, Assimilation; TRANSF, Transformation; EX, Exploitation; INN, Innovative capacity (superordinate construct); INNTEC, Product innovation; INNADMIN, Process innovation."
## [527] "Factors: Challenges in learning anatomy; Applications and importance of anatomy; Learning in the dissection laboratory."
## [528] "Subscales: Triggers; Severity; Psychological Distress; Functional Impairments; Insight; Reassurance; Coping Strategies."
## [529] "Factors: Informative needs about diagnosis and prognosis; Informative needs about exams and treatments; Communicative; Relational."
## [530] "Factors: Clinical Preparedness (7 items); Attitudinal Awareness (7 items); Basic Knowledge (4 items)."
## [531] "Domains: Emotions; Confidence in one’s performance; Evaluation of risk."
## [532] "Subscales: Emotions; Confidence in one’s performance; Evaluation of risk appraisal."
## [533] "Factors: Pain; Symptoms; Activities of Daily Living; Sport and Recreation Function; Knee-Related Quality of Life."
## [534] "Factors: Form C: Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior; High Standards for Student Learning, Rigorous Curriculum, and Quality Instruction; Performance Accountability; Advocating; Connections to External Communities; Communication and Monitoring Rigorous Curriculum and Quality Instruction; Supporting Quality Instruction and Performance Accountability. Form A: Form A also includes the factors Connections to External Communities and Performance Accountability. Also similar to a Form C factor was Form A Factor 1, which might be labeled Support for High Standards, Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, and Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. Other factors include: Monitoring for High Standards, Quality Instruction, and Performance Accountability; High Standards for Student Learning; Advocating for High Standards and Advocating and Communicating Rigorous Curriculum. As with Form C, Factor 8 on Form A was not readily interpretable."
## [535] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness."
## [536] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness."
## [537] "Factors: Emotional Exhaustion; Satisfaction in Ministry"
## [538] "Factors: Relaxation and Free Periods; Academic-related Periods; Public-places-related use; Stress-related Periods; and Motives for use."
## [539] "Primary domains: Depression; Anxiety; Mania-Hypomania"
## [540] "Subscales: Student needs (necesidades de orientación; NO); Services required (servicios necesarios, SN). Factors for the NO scale: Personal Guidance; Academic Guidance; Professional Guidance."
## [541] "Scales: Forgiveness towards the Couple; Resentment towards the Couple. Factors: Positive Affection; Benevolence; Positive cognition; Compassion; Positive Behavior; Negative cognition; Negative affect; Avoidance; Revenge."
## [542] "Factors: Stress Control; Influence of external factors on performance; Self-confidence; Concentration."
## [543] "Dimensions: utilitarian orientation; intrinsic preference; interpersonal harmony; innovative orientation; and long-term development"
## [544] "Scales: Intensity; Valence or pleasure; Control. Factors: Tension; Depressed state; Anger; Vigor; Fatigue; Confusion; Friendship."
## [545] "Factors: Trust; Power; Risk perception; Intimacy; Cooperation."
## [546] "Subscales: Physical health (Physical functioning; Role limitations due to physical health); Emotional health (Anxiety and worry; Fatigue related to treatments; Emotional problems); Social support/hope; Family functioning; School and career functioning; Sexual health."
## [547] "Factors: Family support; Competition with others; Appearance; Academic performance; Morality; Approval of others; Love."
## [548] "Factors: Emotion-focused coping; Problem-focused coping; Maladaptive coping. Subscales: Minimization; Distraction; Situation control; Positive self-instruction; Need of social support; Passive avoidance tendencies; Worrying; Resignation; Aggression."
## [549] "Factors: Positive Generativity; Generative Doubts."
## [550] "Subscales: General (General Restorativeness); Coherence."
## [551] "Emotional Facets (Factors): Appraisals; Valence; Bodily Sensations; Motivation; Lexical Labels"
## [552] "Factors: Life satisfaction; Positive Emotion; Negative Emotion."
## [553] "Factors: Attention deficit; Hyperactivity."
## [554] "Subscales: Generalized anxiety; Panic and agoraphobia; Social phobia; Separation anxiety."
## [555] "Factors: Task-oriented coping (TOC); Avoidant-oriented coping (AOC) (Contact a friend; Treat oneself); Emotional-oriented coping (EOC)."
## [556] "Factors: Neutralization; Cleaning; Obsession; Organization; Accumulation; Checking."
## [557] "Factors: Intimacy/Sexuality; Cognition/Memory; Fertility; Relationship; Education/Career; Vitality; Health care; Dependence; Spirituality; Coping."
## [558] "Subscales: Glare; Near Vision; Daytime Driving; Nighttime Driving; Distance Vision."
## [559] "Latent variables: Experiencing God's grace; Legalistic attitudes about God's grace"
## [560] "Factors: Rewards (Recompensas); Leadership (Liderazgo); Change (Cambio); Developing (Desarrollo); Organizational culture (Cultura organizacional); Security (Seguridad); Moral; Service (Servicio); Structure (Estructura); Communications (Comunicaciones); Belonging (Pertenencia); Posts (Puestos); Policies (Políticas); Conflicts (Conflictos)."
## [561] "Factors: Simplicity of knowledge; Certainty of knowledge; Source of knowledge; Justification of knowledge."
## [562] "Subscales: Sentences; Adjectives"
## [563] "Subscales: Working with Clinically Competent Nurses; Support for Education; RN–MD Relationships; Autonomy; Control of Nursing Practice; Nurse Manager Support; Cultural Values; Adequacy of Staffing"
## [564] "Subscales: Nurse–physician relationships; Support for education; Clinical autonomy; Control over nursing practice; Adequacy of staffing; Clinically competent peers; Nurse manager support; Patient-centred culture."
## [565] "Major Dimensions: Staff Offers a Choice?; Resident Accepts Offering of Choice?; Staff Enables the Choice?"
## [566] "Factors: Supporting Social Relationships; Familiarity with Residents' Preferences; Meaningful Resident–Staff Relationships."
## [567] "Parameters: Body Weight Dissatisfaction; Perceptual Distortion"
## [568] "Factors: Working memory; Inhibition."
## [569] "Factors: Optimism in situations of success; Optimism in situations of failure"
## [570] "Factors: Commitment to the Organization; Commitment to the Supervisor; Commitment to the Co-workers; Commitment to the Customers; Commitment to Work; Commitment to the Occupation; Commitment to the Career."
## [571] "Subscales: Cognition; Daily Life and Autonomy; Emotions; Physical Problems; Self; Social Relationships; Physical Problems."
## [572] "Factors: Authoritarian; Benevolent; Limitless; Mystical; Ineffable."
## [573] "Factors: Rumination; Avoidance; Mentalization difficulties."
## [574] "Subtests: Locomotor skills; Ball skills."
## [575] "Factors: Lassitude, mood, and cognitive and social functioning; Anxiety, agitation, irritability, and anger; Suicidal ideation; Disruptions in sleep quality; and Changes in appetite and weight."
## [576] "Subscales: Locomotor skills; Ball skills."
## [577] "Factors: Locomotor skills; Ball skills."
## [578] "Factors: Quality and Frequency of Interaction; Equal Status; Stereotyping; Support for Positive Interaction; Cultural Socialization; Mainstream Socialization; Promotion of Cultural Competence; Colorblind Socialization; Critical Consciousness Socialization."
## [579] "Subscales: Increase Positive; Increase Negative."
## [580] "Scales: Attitudinal; Behavioral."
## [581] "Dimensions: Prosocial; Antisocial"
## [582] "Subscales: Somatic; Cognitive; Self; Sleep; Sexual."
## [583] "Factors: EBM websites; Evidence-based journals; Types of studies; Terms related to EBM; Practice; Access; Patient preferences; Support."
## [584] "Subscales: Technical (T); Organizational (O); Personnel (P)."
## [585] "Subtests: Objects; Faces; Animals"
## [586] "Dimensions: Muscularity; Body Fat"
## [587] "Factors: Perceived Experience with Discrimination; Perceived Language Ability Pressures; Perceived Negative Community Climate."
## [588] "Factors: General pathology; Self-destructive behavior; Fear of closeness."
## [589] "Factors: Cultural humility, Cultural comfort, and Cultural missed opportunities."
## [590] "Factors: Trust; Meaning; Efficiency and efficacy; Organizational inefficacy."
## [591] "SDQ subscales: Hyperactivity; Conduct Problems"
## [592] "Subscales: Infancy; Childhood; Adolescence-Adulthood."
## [593] "Subscales: Willingness to forgive with regret (SBV-MB); Willingness to forgive without regret (SBV-OB)."
## [594] "Factors: Persistence; Flexibility–Rigidity - Flexibility; Flexibility–Rigidity - Rigidity; Self-Control - Organization; Self-Control - Affective Regulation; Self-Realization; Hopelessness - Pessimism; Hopelessness - Optimism; Emotional Vulnerability - Insecurity; Emotional Vulnerability - Confidence/Trust; Emotional Vulnerability - Persuasiveness."
## [595] "Factors: Goal planning; Help-seeking; Family support; Affect control; Positive thinking."
## [596] "Factors: Symptoms management, Finding strategies; Confidence in one’s own abilities"
## [597] "Scales: Masculine positive characteristics; Masculine negative characteristics; Feminine positive characteristics; Feminine negative characteristics."
## [598] "Factors: Performance issues; Self-concept; Sleeping problems; Suicidal ideation."
## [599] "Subscales: Required Self-Control; Emotional Dissonance"
## [600] "Scales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition"
## [601] "Dimensions: Logistics; Culture; Digital; Systems of care; Experiences of care."
## [602] "Factors: Coping with illness; Health; Recovery"
## [603] "Factors: Teacher-Student Friction; Satisfaction with Teacher; Affective relationship; Favoritism; Student Engagement; Classroom Order/Organization"
## [604] "Subscales: Family; Social; School; Staff; Health; Sexual."
## [605] "Factors: Pretending emotions (Surface acting); Invoke emotions (Deep acting); Hide emotions (Surface acting hiding); Emotional consonance."
## [606] "Factors: Familiarization; Immersion."
## [607] "Subtests: Verbal analogy; Figurative reasoning; Symbolic analogy"
## [608] "Factors: (1) Treatment Advantages, (2) Treatment Convenience, (3) Treatment Confidence, and (4) Satisfaction with Physician."
## [609] "Factors: distress; feelings of persecution; family conflict; rigidity; happiness; loneliness; financial security."
## [610] "Factors: Interpersonal Security; Certainty in Control."
## [611] "Factors: Aggressive behavior; social anxiety; obsessive-compulsive behavior; avoidance from family members; depression; absence of activities of daily living; incomprehensible maladapted behavior; absence of social participation; decreased activity; irregular life pattern"
## [612] "Subscales: Problem solving; expressive coping; denial of guilt; relativization; wishful thinking; self-protection; pleasure; resignation"
## [613] "Instrumental factors: Social Rebellion; Authoritarianism; Machismo; Cooperation; Achievement-oriented; Egocentric. Expressive factors: Affiliation; Romantic; Vulnerability; Negative emotions; Passive Aggressive"
## [614] "Subscales: Self-efficacy towards treatment; Social self-efficacy; Trust."
## [615] "Factors: Beliefs about training contributions for the individual and the organization; Beliefs about the process of surveying training needs; Beliefs about outcomes and the process of training."
## [616] "Dimension Factors: Production; Interpretation"
## [617] "Factors: Symptoms & Function; Emotional Response; Healthcare Support."
## [618] "Subscales: Somatic; Psychological; Social factor; Life habits."
## [619] "Factors: Academic Confidence; Interpersonal Confidence; Moral Certainty; Coping Efficacy; Achievement Expectations."
## [620] "Factors: Parental commitment; Attitudes towards school; Perception of one's level of academic success; Parental supervision; School aspirations."
## [621] "Subscales: Professional Self-efficacy; Professional Satisfaction."
## [622] "Factors: Fathers: Positive interaction, Punitive discipline; Positive affection; Emotional intolerance; Restrictive control. Factors: Mothers: Positive interaction, Punitive discipline; Positive affection; Emotional intolerance; Restrictive control; Educational support."
## [623] "Subscales: Symptoms; Sports activities; Function."
## [624] "Factors: Projecting fault onto others or sharing of responsibility (Rejet ou partage de responsabilité); Minimization of transgression and their consequences (Minimisation des transgressions et de leurs consequences)."
## [625] "Factors: Appreciation of humor; Personal sense of humor; Uses of coping humor; Positive attitudes towards humorous people."
## [626] "Subscales: Familia (Family); Self; Escola (School); Self Comparado (Self-Comparison); Não-Violência (Non-Violence); Auto-Eficácia (Self-Efficacy); Amizade (Friendship)."
## [627] "Factors: Agency thinking; Pathway thinking; Transcendental adaptation; Persisting effort"
## [628] "Factors: Dietary; Sleep; Hygiene; Study; Exercise; Entertainment; Interpersonal relationship; Coping style; Life satisfaction."
## [629] "Factors: Uncertainty; Negative experiences; Positive experiences"
## [630] "Factors: Primitive cluster, Neurotic cluster, and Adaptive cluster. Developmental Levels: Generativity, Solidarity, Individuation, Rivalry, Resistance, Symbiosis, Egocentricity, Fragmentation, and Lack of Structure."
## [631] "Subscales: Self-to-Self Consciousness; Other-to-Self Consciousness; Self-to-Other Consciousness. Subscale sub-dimensions: Public; Private"
## [632] "Factors: Exploration; Competition; Risk-taking; Perseverance; Punishment."
## [633] "Factors: Emotional dependency; Triangulation and responsibility for parents; Emotional separation from parents; Autonomy; Emotional separation from partner; Fusion with parents; Fusion with partner."
## [634] "Systemic Functional Grammar Dimensions: Field; Tenor; Mode"
## [635] "Factors: A sense of belonging; A sense of situation; A sense of contribution; A sense of role; A sense of cooperation."
## [636] "Subscales: Lack of control of depression; Catastrophizing; Worthlessness; Incapability."
## [637] "Factors: Clinician self-recognition; Clinician annoyance; Ability to maintain boundaries; Negative affect; Apprehension/tension; Positive affect"
## [638] "Scales: Stress Reaction; Alienation; Control; Aggression; Well-Being; Absorption."
## [639] "Factors: The 16-item version of the measure includes four factors (Yearning, Impairment, Kinesia, and Music)."
## [640] "Factors: Positive; Negative."
## [641] "Subscales: Intrinsic (Intrínseca); Integrated (Integrada); Identified (Identificada); Introjected (Introyectada); External (Externa); Amotivation (Amotivación)."
## [642] "Factors: Uncontrollable (IC); Over-requirement (SE); Upper train (TS); Surface-related (RS); Controllable (C); Recurrence (R)."
## [643] "Factors: Equality of Opportunities; Social Relations; Society and Visual Disability."
## [644] "Factors: Intrinsic Motivation Knowledge; Intrinsic Motivation Self-Improvement; Intrinsic Motivation Stimulation; Identified Extrinsic Motivation; Introjected Extrinsic Motivation; Extrinsic Motivation External Regulation; Amotivation."
## [645] "Factors: Strategy; Adversity; Skill; Affects; Achievement."
## [646] "Scales: Aggressiveness (Aggressivität); Adventure (Abenteuer); Nature (Natur); Intellect (Intellekt); Aesthetics (Ästhetik); Community (Gemeinschaft); Competition (Wettkampf); Spontaneity (Spontaneität); Endurance (Ausdauer); Force (Kraft); Fitness."
## [647] "Factors: Interest; Challenge; Choice; Enjoyment."
## [648] "Scales: Motivation for education (general factor); Personal effectiveness; Interest; Deployment; Outcome Effectiveness; Indirect effectiveness. Subscales: Personal effectiveness: context; Personal Effectiveness: general."
## [649] "Factors: Handling of complaints (Umgang mit Reklamationen); Finding out customer’s requests (Ermitteln von Kundenaufträgen); Establishing a relationship to the customer (Beziehungsaufbau zum Kunden)."
## [650] "Factors: Providing empathetic care as a way of preventing aggression; Controlling upsetting thoughts caused by aggression."
## [651] "Factors: Intrusion characteristics; Mental discomfort accompanying intrusions"
## [652] "Factors: Physical/emotional exhaustion (PEE/EFE), Sport devaluation (SD/D), Reduced sense of accomplishment and (RSA/RSL)."
## [653] "Factors: Empowering; Disempowering (higher-order factors). Dimensions: Autonomy support; Controlling; Task involving; Ego involving; Relatedness support; Relatedness thwarting; Structure."
## [654] "Factors: Emergence of unconscious; Activation of conscious feeling; Reinterpretation of memory."
## [655] "Factors: Function; Insomnia; Lethargy; Motile abnormal sleep; Immotile abnormal sleep."
## [656] "Factors: Respect; Organization; Patient and family information."
## [657] "Factors: Adjustment to social positions; Impersonal bureaucratic arrangements; Limitation of alternatives."
## [658] "Dimensions: target-specification goal ambiguity; time-specification goal ambiguity; program evaluation goal ambiguity"
## [659] "Factors: Internet sociality self-perception; Internet self-disclosure; Internet interpersonal; Internet interaction dependence."
## [660] "Factors: Belonging (Pertenencia); Discretion (Discrecionalidad); Remuneration systems (Sistemas de retribución); Reconciliation of work, personal and family life (Conciliación de la vida laboral, personal y familiar)."
## [661] "Factors: Talent development (Desarrollo del talento); Time and objectives (Tiempo y objetivos)."
## [662] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression; Learning problem; Sociality problem."
## [663] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness."
## [664] "Factors: Training for employment; Quality of schooling; Social interaction; Social pressure; Political and citizenship engagement."
## [665] "Factors: Catastrophizing; Dichotomous thinking; Outside self-worth; Negative self-labeling; Perfectionism."
## [666] "Factors: (1) Education, (2) Business Achievement, (3) People and Environment, and (4) Technology and Innovation Affinity."
## [667] "Factors: Conflict and Confusion; Sensitivity and Responsiveness; Availability."
## [668] "Factors: General internalization (Internalização geral); Behavioral intention (Intenção de comportamento)."
## [669] "Factors: Parent support; Restrictive control; Compliance. Subscales: Warmth; Autonomy; Knowledge; Inductive Reasoning; Permissiveness; Punishment; and Intrusiveness."
## [670] "Factors: Technology acceptance; Technology competence; Technology control."
## [671] "Factors: Reassurance behavior; Avoidance behavior."
## [672] "General Factor: School general self-efficacy. Subscales Math; French; School"
## [673] "Factors: Hyperactive delirium; Hypoactive delirium."
## [674] "Factors: Social relationships; Personal well-being; Self-determination."
## [675] "Factors: Optimism; Pessimism."
## [676] "Factors: Biological needs (Biologische Bedürfnisse); Psychological needs (Psychologische Bedürfnisse); Social needs (Soziale Bedürfnisse); Environmental needs (Umwelt-bedürfnisse). Subfactors: Body (Körper); Mobility (Mobilität); Basal and instrumental activities of the daily life (basale und instrumentelle Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens); Job (Beruf); Memory/Cognition (Gedächtnis/Kognition); Behavior (Verhalten); Mental health (psychische Gesundheit); Security (Sicherheit); Social Activities (soziale Aktivitäten); Emotional closeness (emotionale Nähe); Information, Material."
## [677] "Factors: Hygiene (Higiene); Morality (Moralidad); Sexuality (Sexualidad); Bodily violation (Trasgresión corporal); Small animals (Pequeños animales); Deterioration/disease (Deterioro/enfermedad)."
## [678] "Factors: E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Negative Emotionality, O = Open-Mindedness."
## [679] "Factors: Behavioral; Affective; Cognitive; Agent engagement."
## [680] "Factors: Partner Love (Partner Duyulan Sevgi); Truth of the relationship (Iliskinin Dogrulugu); Loved By Partner (Partner Tarafindan Sevilme)."
## [681] "Factors: Morality; Sociality; Emotional Stability; Qualification; Outside appearance; Intelligence."
## [682] "Factors: Relational skills; Family bonds; Attitude towards the addict."
## [683] "Factors: Restriction/Blaming/Threat; Emotional-Verbal Violence; Responsibility."
## [684] "Factors: Choice of Social Activity; Gender Expression."
## [685] "Factors: General sense of direction; Use of compass directions; Preference for survey representation of space; Landmark-centered preference; Route preference for spatial representation."
## [686] "Factors: Event Load; Personal Vulnerability."
## [687] "Factors: Corporate website favorability; Usability; Customer service; Information; Visual; Corporate image; Corporate reputation; Satisfaction; Attractiveness."
## [688] "Factors: Emotional control; Rationality; Emotional Repression; Need for Harmony; and Understanding."
## [689] "Factors: Meaning of the belonging to the regional territory; Awareness of belonging; Meaning of belonging to the regional culture and history."
## [690] "Subscales: Subjective Burden; Objective Burden"
## [691] "Subscales: Care Delivery; Care Interactions."
## [692] "Subscales: Frontal-Subcortical; Posterior-Cortical."
## [693] "Domains: Substance use; Health risk; Physical/psychological health; Personal/social functioning."
## [694] "Subscales (1) Vocal, (2) Eating/sleeping, (3) Social, (4) Facial, (5) Activity, (6) Body and Limbs, and (7) Physiological Signs."
## [695] "Factors: Altered Consciousness; Sensation; Relaxation; Affect."
## [696] "Factors: Fear of Rejection; Readiness for Self-Disclosure; Need for Care"
## [697] "Subscales: Emotion intensity attribution; Obligation perception; Permissibility judgment"
## [698] "Factors: Cognitive abilities; Preference for display of numeric information"
## [699] "Factors: Arousal; Avoidance; Intrusion."
## [700] "Subscales: Feel Shame; Escape; Prevent Exposure; and Externalize Blame."
## [701] "Factors: Emotional Functioning; Physical Functioning; Teasing/Marginalization; Positive Social Attributes; Mealtime Challenges; and School Functioning."
## [702] "Factors: Accepted Relations; Initiated Relations; Group Relations."
## [703] "ESDQ Self-Rating Factors: Anger, Emotional Dyscontrol, Helplessness, Inertia, Fatigue, Indifference, Inappropriate, and Euphoria. ESDQ Partner-Report Factors: Anger, Helplessness, Emotional Dyscontrol, Indifference, Inappropriateness, Fatigue, Maladaptive behaviour, and Insight."
## [704] "Subscales: Emotional; Cultural; Perceptual; Understanding; Flow-Proximal Conditions; Flow—Experience."
## [705] "Scales: Language brokering extent; Language-brokering attitudes. Factors: School-related language brokering; Home management language brokering; Burden of language brokering; Positive attitudes; Negative attitudes."
## [706] "Factors (Families' attitudes): Anxiety and resistance to conveying; Not knowing how to convey; Expressing feelings on a daily basis."
## [707] "Subscales: Personal well-being; Communal well-being; Environmental well-being; and Transcendental well-being."
## [708] "Facets of Personality Factors: Self-Consciousness (Neuroticism; SJT-N), Gregariousness (Extraversion; SJT-E), Openness to Ideas (Openness to Experience; SJT-O), Compliance (Agreeableness; SJT-A); Self-Discipline (Conscientiousness; SJT-C)"
## [709] "Factors: Leadership; Culture; Evaluation; Social Capital; Formal Interactions; Informal Interactions Non-Direct; Informal Interactions Direct; Structural and Electronic Resources Formal; Structural and Electronic Resources Traditional; Structural and Electronic Resources - Electronic; Organizational Slack - Time; Organizational Slack - Space; Organizational Slack - Human Resources."
## [710] "Factors: Emotional Exhaustion; Pessimism; Devaluation."
## [711] "Factors: Negative emotions; Somatic symptoms; Intensity and frequency of major stress."
## [712] "Subscales: Ganqing (4 items), Renqing (4 items), and Xinren (3 items)."
## [713] "Factors: Ecological approach, client-centred approach, accessibility, quality of the service providers and continuity."
## [714] "Factors: Willingness to learn, Social competence, Self-motivation, Stress resistance, and Conscientiousness."
## [715] "Subscales: Perceived Computer Attributes Scale and Computer Attitudes Scale."
## [716] "Subscales: Metacognitive Demands; Student-Student Discourse; Student-Teacher Discourse; Student Voice; Distributed Control; Teacher Encouragement and Support; Emotional Support."
## [717] "Attention skills: attention maintenance duration; audiovisual matching accuracy; attention shifting speed. Lateral events: Social Positive; Social Neutral; Nonsocial. Central stimuli: High competition; Low competition."
## [718] "Subscales: (a) treatment of others; (b) religiousness; (c) personal strength; (d) belongingness; (e) affect-regulation; (f) self-understanding; and (g) optimism."
## [719] "Subscales: pay information seeking preferences; pay information sharing preferences"
## [720] "Factors: recognition of needs; collaboration to access help from formal and natural supports; activation of skills to cope with stress, enhance resilience, and develop and carry out plans of care."
## [721] "Consensus Analysis/Second-Order Factors: Trusting Peers' experience while providing support and structure; Healthy peers, healthy clients; You can trust us, we are here to help."
## [722] "Factor 1: Worry about transplant; Factor 2: Guilt regarding donor; Factor 3: Disclosure; Factor 4: Adherence; and Factor 5: Responsibility."
## [723] "Factors: Cognitive; Affective; Somatic."
## [724] "Factors: Compulsory; Democratic; Politicized; and Integrative."
## [725] "Factors: Caring-fairness; Trust; Toughness"
## [726] "Subscales: Biopsychosocial conceptualization; Perceived competence in mental health diagnosis and treatment; Perceived importance of mental health providers; Access to mental health/ behavioral medicine services; and Perceived PCP role in mental health diagnosis and treatment."
## [727] "Eight subscales: Promotion and Prevention subscales for each of four types of crafting (task, relational, skill, and cognitive)."
## [728] "Subscales: Administrative data monitoring, Two-step screening, Furniture and equipment, Multidisciplinary staff, Discharge planning, Standardized assessment tools, Physical environment and design, Quality improvement, Clinical care protocols, Educational sessions, Geriatric team, Linkages between ED and homecare services, and Family-centered discharge."
## [729] "PCA extracted a single factor (i.e., patient insight)."
## [730] "Hope components: Attachment; Survival-Coping; Mastery"
## [731] "Subscales: Sleep quality; Sleep anxiety; Bedtime refusal; Sleep routines."
## [732] "Factors: Inconsiderate Behavior; Abusive Supervision; Social Exclusion; Inappropriate Jokes; Violating Communication Etiquette; Free-Riding; Gossip and Cursing; Climate of Hostility."
## [733] "Risk Factors: C=Coma; I=Intoxication suspected; D=Deficit (neurological); S=Seizure; S2=Skull Fracture. The five factors together comprise the CIDSS2 risk score (C-I-D-S-S2 added together)"
## [734] "Sharp/dull; Surface Pressure; Surface Localization; Temperature; Proprioceptive movement and direction; Sensory extinction; Two-point discrimination"
## [735] "Dimensions: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission. Subscales: Empowerment, Team Orientation, Capability Development, Core Values, Agreement, Coordination and Integration, Creating Change, Customer Focus, Organizational Learning, Strategic Direction and Intention, Goals and Objectives, and Vision."
## [736] "Factors: Competency and Autonomy; Perception of Actual Cooperation; Perceived Need for Cooperation."
## [737] "Subscales: Happiness; Sadness; Anger; Anxiety."
## [738] "Factors: Fear avoidance; damage; embarrassment avoidance; symptom focusing; all-or-nothing; resting"
## [739] "Factors: Religious needs; Existential needs; Forgiveness/generativity needs; Need for inner peace; Emotional needs."
## [740] "Domains: Daily living and self-care; Work, study or purposeful daily activities; and Social contacts."
## [741] "Domains: Pain; Stiffness; Physical function."
## [742] "Domains: Self perception; Role-emotional; Role-social; and Symptoms."
## [743] "Factors: Conspicuous; Unique; Quality; Extended self; and Hedonic."
## [744] "Subscales: Impulsive aggression; Premeditated aggression."
## [745] "Subscales: Self-punishment; Escape; Dependence; Belonging; Revenge; Stigma; and Eliciting help."
## [746] "Subscales: Symptoms; Function"
## [747] "Factors: Persuasion; Nurturing"
## [748] "Factors: Family; Peer; and School."
## [749] "Factors: Affect; Concern."
## [750] "Patient admission; Organization of work; Special treatments, examinations and procedures; Allocation of material resources; Allocation of staffing resources; Patient discharge."
## [751] "Factors: Salience; mood modification; tolerance; withdrawal; conflict; and relapse."
## [752] "Subscales: Orientation; Registration; Clock drawing; Delayed recall; Verbal fluency; Logical memory."
## [753] "Scales: Social interdependence; Sociocognitive conflict regulation; Motivation. Subscales: Cooperation; Competition; Individualistic; Perceived Competence; Interest; Relatedness; Epistemic Regulation; Relational Regulation."
## [754] "Factors: Attention; Internalizing; Externalizing"
## [755] "Factors: Performance; Social; Appearance."
## [756] "Factors: Therapist Adherence; Client-Therapist Alliance."
## [757] "Factors: Engulfment; Rejection; Acceptance; and Enrichment."
## [758] "Subscales: General fatigue; sleep/rest fatigue; and cognitive fatigue."
## [759] "Subscales: Work-related difficulties; Factors contributing to work difficulties."
## [760] "Factors: Meaning in life judgments; Coherence; Purpose; Mattering."
## [761] "Factors: Hygiene; Eating; Sleep; Duties at home; Leisure at home; Exercising; Social activities; and Work/study involvement."
## [762] "Factors: Direct relation with God (DRC); Asceticism (ASCT); Divine love (DL); Meditation (MD)."
## [763] "Factors: Cognitive empathy; affective empathy"
## [764] "Factors for the ARM-12: Bond, Partnership, Confidence, and Openness. Factor for the ARM-5: Core alliance."
## [765] "Subscales: Positive Effects; Service and Cost; Negative Features; Personal Image."
## [766] "Factors: Value of life; Negative emotions; Sense of alienation; Physical discomfort; Health care concerns; Existential distress; Food-related concerns; Support."
## [767] "Factors: Indirect OIM tactics; Promotion; Ingratiation; Exemplification."
## [768] "Factors: Situational perspective; External perspective; Internal perspective; Views about approaches."
## [769] "Subscales: Avoidance Reinforcement; Overprotection; Sanction; Reward; Problem solving; Encouragement. Factors: Autonomy-Promoting responses; Anxiety-Promoting responses; Reward responses."
## [770] "Factors: Online Counseling Subjective Norm Scale, Online Counseling Perceived Behavioral Control Scale, Online Counseling Intention Scale, and Online Counseling Behavior Scale."
## [771] "The six factors identified were: Inhibitory Cognitions, Relationship Importance, Arousability, Partner Characteristics and Behaviors, Setting (Unusual or Unconcealed), and Dyadic Elements of the Sexual Interaction."
## [772] "Subscales: Personal continuity--Care provider knows me; Personal continuity--Care provider shows commitment; and Team/cross-boundary continuity."
## [773] "Factors: Parental hostility; Sibling hostility; Domestic hostility; Peer hostility."
## [774] "Factors: Rejection; Minimization; Self-blame."
## [775] "Subscales: Physical and Social Pleasure; Relaxation and Tension Reduction."
## [776] "Subscales: Avoidance; Approach."
## [777] "Factors: Triggers, Severity, Psychological distress, Functional impairment, Insight, Reassurance, and Coping strategy."
## [778] "Subscales: New Experiences Seeking and Physical Sensations Attraction."
## [779] "Factors: Escape; Self-punishment; Antidissociation; Interpersonal influence; Stigma; Dependence; Problematic; Antisuicide; Enjoyable; Belonging."
## [780] "Subscales: Work itself, Supervision, Coworkers, Pay, and Promotion."
## [781] "Factors: General AUD factor; Residual Factor 1 (Compulsive use); Residual Factor 2 (Physiological dependence)."
## [782] "Factors: Triggers; Severity; Psychological distress; Coping strategies; Functioning impairments; Insight; Reassurance."
## [783] "Factors: Interference and Avoidance; Other Body Dysmorphic Disorder Symptoms"
## [784] "Intensity Scale—Factor 1: Behavioral & Emotional Problems and Intensity Scale—Factor 2: Child Competencies. Parental Self-Efficacy Scale—Factor 1: Self-Efficacy."
## [785] "Factors: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional."
## [786] "Subscales: Active Function; Passive Function."
## [787] "Subscales: Daily decision-making; Political attitudes and decision-making; Precautionary measures taken to reduce the threat; The relative threat of terrorism in regard to other threats or fears to the American public; and Feelings of uncertainty due to a potential attack."
## [788] "Factors: Emotional deprivation; Abandonment; Mistrust/Abuse; Social isolation; Defectiveness/Shame; Social undesirability; Failure to achieve; Dependence/Incompetence; Vulnerability; Enmeshment; Subjugation; Self-sacrifice; Emotional inhibition; Unrelenting standards; Entitlement; Insufficient self-control."
## [789] "Subcomponents: Self-categorization and labeling; Sharing organizational goals and values; Sense of attachment, belonging, and membership of the organization."
## [790] "Components: For the P (Positive aspects) section: Emotional well-being, individual competence, Social competence, and Physical well-being. For the N (Negative aspects) section: Individual suffering, Social suffering, Physical suffering, and Violence/criminality. For the T (Treatment readiness) section: Treatment readiness, Readiness to change, and Readiness to act."
## [791] "The IPE has four factors: Internal Harmonious Passion (HP), External HP, Internal Obsessive Passion (OP), and External OP."
## [792] "Factor 1: White Privilege Awareness; Factor 2: Heterosexism Awareness; Factor 3: Christian Privilege Awareness; and Factor 5: Sexism Awareness."
## [793] "Factor 1: Parental Support Toward Music Training; Factor 2: Parental Expectations; Factor 3: Home Music Environment; Factor 4: Music Program Support; Factor 5: Attitude Toward Music; Factor 6: Family Music Background; and Factor 7: Family Music Interest."
## [794] "Factors: (1) Fine motor skills, (2) locomotor skills, and (3) ball skills."
## [795] "Subscales: Physical; Psychosocial; and Social."
## [796] "Subscales: Five subscales are common to both scales for Mothers and Fathers (i.e., Degradation and Rejection, Competitiveness and Status Seeking, Emotional Inhibition and Deprivation, Overprotection and Overindulgence, and Punitiveness). An additional scale emerged for Mothers (i.e., Controlling)."
## [797] "Factor 1: Social/practical; Factor 2: Illness/treatments; and Factor 3: Role/relationships."
## [798] "Factors: Orientation towards issues, Orientation towards facts, and Orientation towards evaluations."
## [799] "Factors: Leadership; Logical Thinking; Composure; Creativity; Fearlessness; Money Smart; Focus, Extroversion; Management."
## [800] "Factors: Identity; Self-direction; Empathy; Intimacy"
## [801] "Domains: emotional impact; usual and social activities; coping with control."
## [802] "Scales: These include three symptom (pain, exudate, odour), plus an itchiness item; four physical functioning (sleep, movement and mobility, daily activities, vitality); two psychological well-being (emotional well-being, self-consciousness and appearance); and one social participation scale."
## [803] "Factors: Achievement; Relationship; Religion; Self-transcendence; Self-acceptance; Intimacy; Fair Treatment"
## [804] "Factors: Survival need satisfaction; Social contribution need satisfaction; Self-determination theory autonomy needs; Self-determination theory competence needs; and Self-determination theory relatedness needs."
## [805] "Factors: Perceived Ability; Enjoyment factor; General factor."
## [806] "Factors: Physical; Emotional."
## [807] "Factors: Creative imaginativeness; social imaginativeness; practical imaginativeness"
## [808] "Factor 1: Impulse control and Factor 2: Compliance/Executive control."
## [809] "Factor 1: Increased Preparation and Control (with e-mail); Factor 2: Enhanced Meaning and Emotion (with face-to-face); and Factor 3: Reduced Anxiety and Inhibition."
## [810] "Factors: Multi-item scales (Symptom experience; Body image; Sexual/vaginal functioning); Single-item scales (Lymphoedema; Peripheral neuropathy; Menopausal symptoms; Sexual activity; Sexual worry (Sexual enjoyment)."
## [811] "Subscales: Confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility."
## [812] "Factors: Severe Pain, Minor Pain, and Medical Pain."
## [813] "Domains: Identity; Self-direction; Empathy; Intimacy"
## [814] "Factors: Stranger directed aggression; Dog-directed aggression/fear; Owner-directed aggression; Excitability; Stranger-directed fear; Separation-related behavior; Non-social fear; Dog rivalry/familiar dog aggression; Chasing; Trainability; Attachment/attention-seeking behavior; Energy level; and Touch sensitivity."
## [815] "Variables: projected criminal behavior; commitment to monetary success goals; weak commitment to institutionalized means for pursuing monetary success goals; commitment to non-monetary success goals; perceived risk of punishment; financial dissatisfaction; limited access to legitimate opportunities; and lack of consensus on normative means"
## [816] "Subscales: Dissatisfaction with Success and Increase in Standards."
## [817] "Subscales: Managing the Psychosocial Aspects of Diabetes; Assessing Dissatisfaction and Readiness to Change; and Setting and Achieving Diabetes Goals."
## [818] "Factor 1: General Task and Team Knowledge; Factor 2: General Task and Communication Skills; Factor 3: Attitude Toward Teammates and Task; Factor 4: Team Dynamics and Interactions; and Factor 5: Team Resources and Working Environment."
## [819] "Factor: Fear; Avoidance; Attention; and Reassurance seeking."
## [820] "Subscales: Identity; Traditions; Spirituality."
## [821] "Factor 1: Depression; Factor 2: Anger; Factor 3: Muscle Tension; Factor 4: Cardiopulmonary Arousal; Factor 5: Sympathetic Arousal; Factor 6: Neurological/GI; Factor 7: Cognitive Disorganization; and Factor 8: Upper Respiratory Symptoms."
## [822] "Subscales: Educational Play; Object Exploration; Social Games and Routines"
## [823] "Motives structured a priori in the following five higher motive-categories: Wealth gain; social influence; identity/traits; emotional attachment; sustainability consciousness"
## [824] "Factors: Perceived Autonomy; Perceived Competence. Subscales: In-Game Autonomy; In-In-Game Competence; Presence; Intuitive Controls; Preference for Future Play; Game Enjoyment; ."
## [825] "Subscales: (1) Relationship Control and (2) Decision-making dominance."
## [826] "Factors: Locus of control; Time perspective; Planning; Information; Self-concept; Exploration; Key figures; and Curiosity."
## [827] "Subscales: (1) Uncertainty and (2) Certainty about mental states."
## [828] "Factor 1: negative thoughts, feelings, and physical symptoms; Factor 2: negative self-efficacy/insolvability; Factor 3: prevention; Factor 4: annulation; Factor 5: ignoring the problem; Factor 6: expectation/diversion; Factor 7: mulling; Factor 8: procrastination/rethink; Factor 19: stopping/subordination; Factor 10: external pressure; and Factor 11: asking for help."
## [829] "Factors: Depression; Anxiety; Self-harm/suicide."
## [830] "Factors: Disgust Propension; Disgust Sensitivity."
## [831] "Factors: Elemental forces and technological strain; Incidents and accidents; Reporting and assessment; Pressure and interruption; Team shortcomings and cultural differences; Interaction obstacles; Own individual shortcomings."
## [832] "Factors: Autonomy satisfaction; Autonomy frustration; Competence satisfaction; Competence frustration; Relatedness satisfaction; Related frustration."
## [833] "Scales: Questions; Evidence; Basic science processes; Integrated science processes; Analysis & Explain; Connect; and Communicate."
## [834] "Factors: Completing tasks; Avoiding distraction."
## [835] "Factors: Excessive certainty; Concrete thinking; Good mentalization; Teleological thought; Intrusive pseudomentalization."
## [836] "Factor 1: Intention to innovative activities; Factor 2: Subjective norm; Factor 3: Perceived behavioral control; Factor 4: Attitude; Factor 5: Growth need strength; and Factor 6: Perceived benefits."
## [837] "Factors: Service behavior; Physical contact; Confirmatory words; Quality time; Buying presents."
## [838] "Subscales: Administrative process; Teachers and teamwork; School facilities; Diagnosis and education programmes; and Parents’ perceptions."
## [839] "Factor 1: Pathological use and Factor 2: Problem use."
## [840] "Factors: Horizontal Individualism; Vertical Individualism; Horizontal Collectivism; Vertical Collectivism."
## [841] "Subscales: 1) Physical Activity, 2) Nutrition/Weight Management, and 3) Organizational Characteristics and Support."
## [842] "Factors: Teaching Readiness; Teaching Excellence."
## [843] "Factors: Automatic informational processing and Controlled informational processing."
## [844] "Factors: Numerical data; symbolic data; spatial data; STEM-related ideas."
## [845] "Factors/Subscales: External Driving Environment; Internal Driving Environment."
## [846] "The ISRE has three factors—Factor 1: Information Retrieval & Organization, Factor 2: Strategy Regulation & Schedule Monitoring, and Factor 3: Time Management Efficiency."
## [847] "The IKME has four factor-based subscales: Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Application, Knowledge Sharing, and Knowledge Creation."
## [848] "Factors: Process/Competence; Interests/Values; and Complexity/ Uncertainty."
## [849] "Factors: Perception of health professionals; Nursing/midwifery care in labor (in caesarean version: preparation for caesarean); Comforting; Information and involvement in decision making; Meeting baby; Postpartum care; Hospital room; Hospital facilities; Respect for privacy; and Meeting expectations."
## [850] "Factors: Autonomy support; Competence support; Relatedness support."
## [851] "The ERS-ACA has three factor-based subscales: Avoidance Strategies, Approach Strategies, and Self-Development Strategies."
## [852] "The questionnaire includes four scales formed by summing the items in the corresponding portion of the instrument: Confidence, Driving avoidance, Perceived barriers to restriction of driving, and Regulatory self-efficacy."
## [853] "Subscales: Test anxiety (AAI-TEST, 10 items); Math anxiety (AAI-MATH, 10 items); Science anxiety (AAI-SCI, 10 items); Trait anxiety (AAI-TRAIT, 10 items); Writing anxiety (AAI-WRI, 10 items)"
## [854] "Subscales: Fear of Abandonment; Instability of Interpersonal Relationship, Identity Disturbance; Impulsivity; Suicidal/Self-injurious Behaviors; Affective Instability; Feelings of Emptiness; Anger and Transient Paranoid/Dissociative Symptoms."
## [855] "Factors: Acceptance for Sexual Freedom; Acceptance for Sexual Shyness."
## [856] "Factors: Social Awareness; Social Isolation; Self-Control; Social Anxiety; Establishing Relationships."
## [857] "Factors: Anger; Happiness/Joy; Surprise; Disgust; Sadness; Fear; Pride; Guilt; Shame; Depression; Anxiety; Jealousy."
## [858] "Factors: Labile laughter and Labile tearfulness."
## [859] "Factors: Intrusions; Avoidance; Negative Affect; Anhedonia; Externalizing; Anxious Arousal; Dysphoric Arousal."
## [860] "Dimensions: Challenges hindering SP-PQL; Personal and professional strategies to support SP-PQL."
## [861] "Survey constructs: awareness of consequences; ascription of responsibility; personal norm; attitude; subjective norm; perceived behavioral control; intention to choose an organic menu item; and intention to visit a restaurant featuring organic menu items."
## [862] "Scales: ADHD Total (ASIS Inattention subscale and ASIS Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale); and ASIS Infrequency (INF)."
## [863] "Factors: ADL (activities of daily living); Mastery; Well-being; Volition; Determination; Loneliness; Dressing"
## [864] "Factors: Assessment and care planning; Teaching of patients and families; Communication and care coordination; Integration and supervision of staff; Quality of care and patient safety; and Knowledge updating and utilization."
## [865] "Factors: (1) Peers, (2) Patients, (3) Managers, (4) Hospital, and (5) Physicians."
## [866] "Subscales: Drunk Driving; Risky Driving; Negative Cognitive/Emotional Driving; Aggressive Driving"
## [867] "Subscales: Task subscale and Ego subscale."
## [868] "Factors: Cognitive; Emotional; Social; Physical."
## [869] "Subscales: Communicating basic needs (CBN); making routine requests (MRR); communicating new information (CNI); and attention/other communication skills (AO)."
## [870] "Factors: Identity concerns; Black/white thinking; Homophobic beliefs; Beliefs about feelings during relationships."
## [871] "Factors: Closeness; Conflict; Dependence; Rivalry."
## [872] "Factors: Passion; Effort; Ideation."
## [873] "Factors: Health orientation; Weight; Exceeding personal goals and Competition; Recognition; Affiliation; Psychological goal; and Meaning of life and Self-esteem."
## [874] "Factor 1: Cohesiveness; Factor 2: Implementation & Preparedness; and Factor 3: Counterproductive Activity."
## [875] "Factors: Emotional-informational support; tangible support; affectionate support; and positive social interaction."
## [876] "Microaggression Factors: Dismissal; mistrust; sexualization; social exclusion; and denial of complexity. Microaffirmation Factors: Acceptance; social support; recognition of bisexuality and biphobia; and emotional support."
## [877] "Factors: Instability stereotypes, Sexual irresponsibility stereotypes, and General hostility dimensions of binegative experiences for both binegative experiences from heterosexual and LG individuals."
## [878] "Factors: Speed; Extension; Value; Connectedness."
## [879] "Factors: Appearance, Competence, Importance of physical activity, and Encouragement from others."
## [880] "Factors: Depressive symptoms, Irritability/aggression, Psychotic symptoms, Behavioral dysregulations, Sleep disturbance, Inertia, and Appetite."
## [881] "Subscales: Emotion Regulation; Information Gain."
## [882] "Factors: Perceived control, Pleasantness, Distress, and Awareness."
## [883] "Factor 1: Weakness; Factor 2: Invasion; Factor 3: Emotion; Factor 4: Serious Disease; Factor 5: Digestion; Factor 6: Supernatural Power; and Factor 7: Social Demands."
## [884] "Domains: feeling negative but displaying positive emotion; feeling positive but displaying negative emotion."
## [885] "Subscales: Relationship to the Organization (RO); Organization as Mediator (OM); Influence of the Organization (IO); Bond to the Community (BC)."
## [886] "Factors: Music empathizing; Music systemizing."
## [887] "Factor 1: Parent Outcome Expectations and Factor 2: Parent Competence."
## [888] "Factors: (1) Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE), (2) Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations (SAD-New), and (3) Social Avoidance and Distress-General (SAD-General)."
## [889] "Factors: Perceived stigma; Barriers to care."
## [890] "Factors: Arousal/Power."
## [891] "Higher-Order Factors: Social Interaction; Attention to Detail. Lower-Order Factors: Social Skill; Communication; Attention Switching; Imagination."
## [892] "Factors: Blame and Judgment; Interpersonal Distancing."
## [893] "Factors: Openness to Men; Openness to Women."
## [894] "Factors: Female-Female Competition Stress; Concern with Physical Appearance."
## [895] "Factors: Personal responsibility; Social responsibility"
## [896] "Sections: Intimate partner violence risk factors; Psychosocial adjustment risk factors"
## [897] "The scale is unidimensional."
## [898] "Factor: Experiential avoidance."
## [899] "Persistence despite difficulty; Persistence despite fear; Inappropriate persistence"
## [900] "Subscales: Suicidal ideation and Suicidal behavior."
## [901] "Subscales: Perceived Benefit; Perceived Privacy Risk; Willingness to Provide Privacy Information; Information Sensitivity; Trust; Number of IoT Services; Perceived Critical Mass; Perceived Compatibility; and Perceived Complementarity."
## [902] "Individual characteristics; Technology characteristics; Fit; Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Attitude; Intention to use; Actual use."
## [903] "Factors: For the Sexual image-based abuse myth acceptance scale: minimize/excuse; blame. For Online dating behaviors: online dating behaviors. For sexual self-image behaviors: sexual self-image behaviors."
## [904] "Factors: Parental encouragement; Parental worry; Parental monitoring; Parental permission."
## [905] "Factor 1: Brand experience; Factor 2: Self-congruity; Factor 3: Brand love; Factor 4: Brand loyalty; and Factor 5: Word-of-mouth."
## [906] "Constructs: Ex-post transaction cost; Relationship commitment; Trust; Communication; Contract completeness; Symmetric dependence."
## [907] "Contract details; contract adjustments; relationship continuity; buyer dependence on supplier; supplier dependence on buyer; product importance"
## [908] "Factor 1: Perceived Usefulness and Factor 2: Perceived Ease of Use."
## [909] "Enacted (social) stigma; Internalized (self) stigma; mistrust of healthcare providers"
## [910] "Factors: Conduct Reconstruction; Minimization of Blame; and Distortion of the Action Agent."
## [911] "Factors: Personal autonomy; Domestic autonomy; Extra-domestic autonomy"
## [912] "Factors: Physical Aspects-Completing Work; Psychological Aspects-Avoiding Distraction."
## [913] "Factors: Goal-Setting for Physical Activity, Goal-Setting for Healthy Food Choices, Decision-Making for Physical Activity, and Decision-Making for Healthy Food Choices."
## [914] "Subscales: Physical; Psychological; Independence; Learning & Growth; Material; Environmental; Social."
## [915] "Re-experiencing; Avoidance; Numbing/Dysphoria; Hyperarousal"
## [916] "Factors: Safety behaviors of behavioral orientation, Safety behaviors of cognitive orientation, and Catastrophizing."
## [917] "Subscales: Autonomy Satisfaction; Autonomy Frustration; Relatedness Satisfaction; Relatedness Frustration; Competence Satisfaction; Competence Frustration."
## [918] "Factors: Psychological (Life meaning; self-esteem; psychological coping); Achievement (Personal goal achievement; Competition); Social (Recognition/Approval; Affiliation); Physical (Health orientation; Weight concern)."
## [919] "Subscales: Bond, Tasks, and Goals."
## [920] "Factors (single-factor solution): Positive Orientation. Factors (three-factor solution): Self-Esteem; Life Satisfaction; Optimism."
## [921] "Factors: Fatherhood and Family Not Prioritized; Reject Marital Negotiation; Recouple After Widowerhood; Maintain Sex and Vitality; Retain Patriarchal Authority."
## [922] "Dimensions: Assertiveness; independence; instrumental competence; leadership competence; concern for others; sociability; and emotional sensitivity."
## [923] "Subscales: Spiritual Endurance; Spiritual Enterprise; and Redemptive Purpose."
## [924] "Subtests: Real objects; letters; numbers; pictures; words; colors."
## [925] "Factors: intrusion; avoidance; failure to adapt. ADNM Subtypes: intrusion/rumination; avoidance; failure to adapt; depressed mood; anxiety; impulsive"
## [926] "Decision-making components: Understanding; Appreciation; Reasoning; Communicating a Choice."
## [927] "Factors: General Factor; Negative Effects of Pets."
## [928] "Domains: Comprehensiveness; coordination function; personalized care; family/community orientation. One composite domain is included: First Contact (FC). For the First Contact composite domain there are five subscales: FC utilization; facility accessibility; cost appropriateness; demographic accessibility; basic health care."
## [929] "Factors: Agreement on care plan; Understanding care plan; Medication."
## [930] "Factors: Motivators to Practice a Healthy Lifestyle and Barriers to the Practice of a Healthy Lifestyle."
## [931] "Factor 1: Parental Preoccupation With Adolescent Distress; Factor 2: Parental Distress About Adolescent Separation; Factor 3: Insecurity About Sharing of Caregiving; and Factor 4: Exclusivity of Parental Caregiving."
## [932] "Factors: Positive reinforcement; Negative reinforcement; Loss of control."
## [933] "Factor 1: Information and Relationship Needs; Factor 2: Emotional Needs; Factor 3: Personal Needs; Factor 4: Work and Finance; Factor 5: Health Care Access and Continuity of Care; and Factor 6: Worries About Future."
## [934] "Subscales: Chronically and significantly disturbed sleep; Failure to recover between work shifts; Chronic maladaptive fatigue; Maladaptive alcohol consumption; PTSD symptomology."
## [935] "Domains: Well-Being; Problems/Symptoms; Functioning; Risk."
## [936] "Parental Behavior Dimensions: Threatening; Frightened; Dissociative; Deferential/Sexualized; Disoriented; Non-responsive; Physical distance; Lack of interaction; Intrusiveness; Aggressiveness."
## [937] "Existing subscales: Personal standards; Concern over mistakes; Perceived parental pressure; Perceived coach pressure. New subscales: Doubts about actions; Organization."
## [938] "Factors: Cognitive specific (CS); Motivational general (MG); Motivational specific (MS); MG-Arousal (MG-A); MG-Mastery (MG-M)."
## [939] "Factors: Uncontrolled eating; Cognitive restraint; Emotional eating."
## [940] "Factors: During-cycling skills; Before/after-cycling skills; Transitional-cycling skills"
## [941] "Factor 1: Patience and tolerance; Factor 2: Pleasure in interaction; and Factor 3: Affection and pride."
## [942] "Subscales: Frequency; Severity; and Distress."
## [943] "Factors: Considerateness; Task Orientation; Extraversion; Verbal Facility; Response to Unfamiliar."
## [944] "Factors: Medical staff, Nurses’ staff, Midwives staff, Other staff, Staff identification, Admission, Room arrangement, Food, and Waiting time."
## [945] "Subscales: Tolerance; Fatalism; Communication; Psychological or Cognitive Effect; Immune System; Monitor; Side Effects and Distracting MD"
## [946] "Factors: Perceived parental pressure; personal standards; concern over mistakes; and perceived coach pressure."
## [947] "Subscales: Parenting, Support, and Child development."
## [948] "Factors: Health system and information; Psychological; Physical and daily living; Patient care and support; Sexuality."
## [949] "Scales: Direct rupture markers, Indirect rupture markers, Collaborative processes, Positive interventions, and Negative interventions."
## [950] "Factors: Joint participation in the cure/care decision making process, Sharing of patient information, and Cooperativeness."
## [951] "Factors: Controllability/internality; Stability/globality."
## [952] "Factors: Weight-Loss Social Norms; Physical Activity Social Norms; Eating Social Norms."
## [953] "Factors: Disparagement; Hostility; Indifference; Intimidation; Imposition of behavior patterns; Blaming; and Apparent kindness. Sub-factors: Ridicule; Disqualification; Trivialization; Opposition; Disdain; Reproaches; Insults; Threats; No empathy or support; Monopolization; Judging, criticizing, correcting; Threatening postures & gestures; Destructive behavior; Social isolation; Orders; Deviations; Abusive insistence; Invasion of privacy; Sabotage; Accusations; Gaslighting; Negation/denial; and Manipulation of reality."
## [954] "Factors: Modification; Participation."
## [955] "Factors (first-order): Network location; Collective assets–Peer norms; Collective assets–Sense of belonging; Access to resources. Factors (second-order): Youth social capital; Network structure."
## [956] "Domains: Physical health; Psychological well-being; Social relationships; Satisfaction with the environment."
## [957] "Factors (first-order): Ambience; Navigation; Seating Comfort; Interior Décor. Factors (second-order): Casino Servicescape."
## [958] "Factors (first-order): Physical Environment (PE); Food Quality (FQ); Customer Orientation (CO); Communication (CU); Relationship Benefits (RB); Price Fairness (PF); Trust (TU); Commitment (C); Satisfaction (SA); Customer Loyalty (CL). Factors (second-order to TU, C, and SA): Relationship Quality."
## [959] "CFA verified five factors: Workplace sexual harassment, Depression, Organizational deviance, Interpersonal deviance, and Family Undermining."
## [960] "Factors (first-order factors loading on one second-order HREPM factor): Identification of the reputation landscape (IRL); Assessment of changes in ratings and rankings (ARR); Determination of publication reach (DPR); Comparison with industry competitors (CIC); Review and comparison of ranking methodologies (RRM); Increasing reputational scores (IRS). Factors (first-order perceived benefits): Perceived financial benefits (PFB); Perceived customer relationship benefits (PCRB); Perceived customer-based brand benefits (PCBB)."
## [961] "Factors: Draws and contests; Economic incentives; Perceived support; Customers’ suggestions; Word-of-Mouth."
## [962] "Perceived ethical leadership; Ethical values Person-organization fit; Customer orientation; Commitment to service quality; service sabotage."
## [963] "Upbeat/elation; Serenity/calm; Warm/tender; Brand self-connection; Brand prominence"
## [964] "Domains: Memory; Attention/speed; Executive; Language; Visuospatial; Global cognitive decline"
## [965] "Consumer need for prestige; Trust; Social connection; Customer return on investment; Search convenience; Rider usage behavior"
## [966] "Subscales: Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral self-control."
## [967] "Personalization; Perceived benefits; Perceived risk; Perceived ease of use; Perceived value of disclosure; Trust; Continuance intentions for branded mobile apps."
## [968] "Perceived similarity; Physical appearance; Suitable behavior; Satisfaction; Return intention; Word-of-Mouth intention; E-Word-of-Mouth."
## [969] "Organizational culture; Organizational climate; Organizational capacity; Perceived benefits; Menu intentions"
## [970] "Factors: External affective demands; Internal requirements; and Functionality."
## [971] "Parameters: Overall severity; Roughness; Breathiness; Strain; Loudness; Pitch"
## [972] "Attributes: Overall Severity; Roughness; Breathiness; Strain; Pitch; Loudness."
## [973] "Subtests: 1) similarities (abstract reasoning/conceptualization); 2) lexical fluency (mental flexibility [i.e. self-organization, strategy and change]); 3) motor series (programming and motor planning); 4) conflicting instructions (sensitivity to interference); 5) Go-no-go test (inhibitory control and impulsiveness); and 6) prehension behavior (ability to inhibit a response to sensorial stimulation [i.e. environmental autonomy])."
## [974] "Factors: Power distance; uncertainty avoidance; collectivism; masculinity; long-term orientation; tie-strength; homophily; conformity; normative influence; informational influence; bridging social capital; bonding social capital; trust; opinion seeking; opinion giving; opinion passing."
## [975] "Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Innovation resistance; Perceived privacy risk; LBS connectedness (scope, intensity, centrality)."
## [976] "Factors: Chores; Enjoyment; Educational Benefits; Relaxation; and Reward."
## [977] "Factors: Decline in basic taste; Discomfort; Phantogeusia and parageusia; General taste alterations."
## [978] "Performance criteria: Threshold; Uncertainty region; Confidence interval."
## [979] "Factors: Perfectionism/Certainty (PC); Importance/Control of Thoughts (ICT); Responsibility/Threat Estimation (RT)."
## [980] "Unidimensional structure (1 factor): Emotional Dysregulation"
## [981] "Factors: Psychosis; Neurologic impairment; Amnestic disorders; and Affective disorder."
## [982] "Dimensions: promoting socio-emotional needs of students (Initial training); coping with students' socio-emotional deficits (Coping); school/teacher conditions for the promotion of social/emotional skills in students (School/teacher needs); difficulties in integrating social/emotional skills promotion in daily teaching (Learning/teaching process)."
## [983] "Factors: Personal Burnout; Studies-related Burnout; Colleagues-related Burnout; Teachers-related Burnout."
## [984] "Subscales: Functional scale: Physical Functioning (PF); Role Functioning (RF); Emotional Functioning (EF); Cognitive Functioning (CF); Social Functioning (SF); Global Health/Quality of Life (GH/QoL). Symptom scale: Fatigue (FA); Nausea and Vomiting (NV); and Pain (PA)."
## [985] "Subscales: Health-directed activities, Positive and active engagement in life, Emotional distress, Constructive attitudes and approaches, Self-monitoring and insight, Skill and technique acquisition, Social integration and support, and Health service navigation."
## [986] "Factors: Theory-ladenness; Creativity; Tentativeness; Durability; Coherence; Science for girls; and Science for boys."
## [987] "Factors and Variables: Instrumentality; Need for achievement; Interest in foreign languages and cultures; Desire for knowledge and values associated with English; Bad learning experiences; Desire to spend some time abroad; Language learning is a new challenge"
## [988] "Factors: Intrinsic motivation; Identified regulation; External regulation; and Amotivation."
## [989] "Factors: Job satisfaction; perceptions of management; safety climate; working conditions; stress recognition; and teamwork climate."
## [990] "Unidimensional."
## [991] "Unidimensional."
## [992] "Composite scales: Satisfaction with Life; Mental Health Continuum"
## [993] "Subscales: Mathematical computation anxiety; application anxiety; mathematics course anxiety; mathematics teacher anxiety; and mathematics test anxiety."
## [994] "This instrument includes eight factor-based subscales—Factor 1: Changes in Situational Beliefs; Factor 2: Meaning Making; Factor 3: Changes in Global Beliefs; Factor 4: Long-Term Prevention Strategies; Factor 5: Rational Use of Resources; Factor 6: Acceptance; Factor 7: Heuristic Thinking; and Factor 8: Changes in Goals."
## [995] "Subscales: Violations; Errors; Lapses."
## [996] "Factor 1: Gender Expression; Factor 2: Vigilance; Factor 3: Parenting; Factor 4: Discrimination/Harassment; Factor 5: Vicarious Trauma; Factor 6: Family of Origin; Factor 7: HIV/AIDS; Factor 8: Victimization; and Factor 9: Isolation."
## [997] "Subscales: Procedural Knowledge Routines (PKR); Executive Operations (EXO); Time Management; Domestic Activities; Trip Planning; Health and Hygiene; Crisis Management"
## [998] "Factor 1: Taste/Smell; Factor 2: Pleasure/Satisfaction; and Factor 3: Vapor Cloud Production."
## [999] "Factors (by domain): Attachment Domain—Detached; Uncommitted; Unempathetic; Uncaring. Behavioral Domain—Lacks Perseverance; Unreliable; Reckless; Restless; Disruptive; Aggressive. Cognitive Domain—Suspicious; Lacks Concentration; Intolerant; Inflexible; Lacks Planfulness. Dominance Domain—Antagonistic; Domineering; Deceitful; Manipulative; Insincere; Garrulous. Emotional Domain--Lacks Anxiety; Lacks Pleasure; Lacks Emotional Depth; Lacks Emotional Stability; Lacks Remorse. Self Domain—Self-Centered; Self-Aggrandizing; Sense of Uniqueness; Sense of Entitlement; Sense of Invulnerability; Self-Justifying; Unstable Self-Concept."
## [1000] "Factors: Perceived Respect; Perceived Methodological Rigor; Perceived Intelligence"
## [1001] "Subscales: Cognitive domain, Affection domain, and Psychomotor domain."
## [1002] "Factors: Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempt."
## [1003] "Factors: Membership; Influence; and Fulfillment of needs."
## [1004] "Subscales: Coerciveness; Supportiveness; Chaos; Structure."
## [1005] "Situations Factors: Daily situation characteristics were captured by three scales, i.e., Positive Events, Social Stress, and Workload. Behaviors Factors: Daily behaviors were captured by six scales, i.e., Sociability, Attention Seeking, Externalizing Symptoms, Internalizing Symptoms, Daydreaming, and Perfectionism."
## [1006] "Factor 1: Menu; Factor 2: Technology-based service; Factor 3: Experiential; and Factor 4: Promotional innovativeness."
## [1007] "Factors: Boundary management strategies; Strength of boundary at work (BSW); Strength of boundary at home (BSH); Personal life interference with work (PLIW); Personal life enhancement (PLEW); Work interference with personal life (WIPL); Work enhancement of personal life (WEPL)."
## [1008] "Factors: Resourcefulness; Robustness; Self-care; Alignment; Capability; Connectedness; Perseverance; Finding your calling; Managing stress; Maintaining perspective; Staying healthy; Living authentically; Interacting cooperatively."
## [1009] "Subscales: Avoidance; Intrusion; Hyperarousal"
## [1010] "Subscales: Behavior; Impairment; Symptoms; Social Dimension."
## [1011] "Factors: Cognitive Arousal; Somatic arousal."
## [1012] "Factor analyses indicated the presence of three factor-based subscales—Factor 1: Negative states prior to performance; Factor 2: Relations with the coach; and Factor 3: Burden of the training regime."
## [1013] "Factors: Upset; Positive experiences."
## [1014] "Factors: Social PAS-S; Academic PAS-S. Subscales: Childhood subscale; Early adolescence subscale; Late adolescence subscale; Adulthood subscale; General subscale."
## [1015] "Factors: Socialness; Mindreading; Patterns; Attention to Details; and Attention Switching."
## [1016] "Factors: Wellbeing and participation; communication and physical health; school wellbeing; social wellbeing; access to services; family health; and feelings about functioning."
## [1017] "Factors: Fear of Abandonment and of physical illness; Worry of Calamitous Events; and Fear of Being Alone."
## [1018] "Factor analysis indicated there were three factor-based subscales—Factor 1: Authentic living; Factor 2: Self-alienation; and Factor 3: Accepting external influence."
## [1019] "Reproducing knowledge; Rehearsing; Accountability; Improving learning; Problem solving; Critical judgment"
## [1020] "Physical domain; Familial/Milieu domain; Demographic domain; Emotional/Behavioral domain"
## [1021] "Satisfaction with one’s romantic partner; Perception of quality among available alternatives; Size of investments applied in the relationship; Commitment level towards one’s romantic relationship."
## [1022] "Factor Structure: Mokken analysis resulted in a major one-dimensional scale directly related with burden."
## [1023] "Factors: Communication; Teamwork; Situation Awareness"
## [1024] "Factor 1: Cough; Factor 2: Fever; Factor 3: Pain-Weakness; Factor 4: Urine; Factor 5: Fatigue; Factor 6: Feet-Bone Steaming; Factor 7: Kidney-Liver Deficiency; and Factor 8: Skin-Hair."
## [1025] "Factors: Attention; Receptivity."
## [1026] "Factors: Physical independence; Clinical burden; Mobility; Schooling; Economic burden; and Social integration."
## [1027] "Subscales: Cultural Adaptability; Determination; Tolerance; Self-Presentation; Mission Focus; Engagement; Lie and Social Desirability (control scale)"
## [1028] "Subscales: Public expression of religious beliefs; Neutrality of the state and its institutions; Equality between different religious cults; Protection of religious cults by the state."
## [1029] "Factors: Negative work-to-family interface; negative family-to- work interface; positive work-to-family interface; positive family-to-work interface."
## [1030] "Factor structure: One-dimensional."
## [1031] "Factor analysis indicated the presence of two factors—Factor 1: Independent mobility, and Factor 2: Mobility-enhancing knowledge and skills."
## [1032] "Factors: Work-to-life segmentation/integration and Life-to-work segmentation/integration."
## [1033] "Subscales: Distress; Intrusiveness; Frequency"
## [1034] "Factors: Non-physical violence; Physical violence"
## [1035] "Factors: Autonomy; Job Satisfaction."
## [1036] "Factors: Divine; Meaning; and Interpersonal."
## [1037] "Factors: Depression; Hostility; Interpersonal sensitivity; Obsession compulsion; Paranoid thinking; Phobic anxiety; Psychoticism; Somatization; Anxiety."
## [1038] "Factors: Physical health; mental health."
## [1039] "Factors: Attachment anxiety; attachment avoidance."
## [1040] "Factors: Satisfaction with general and sex life; Interpersonal relationships with people in social life; Personal appearance related to weight and interpersonal relationship with people of same gender; Relations with family and friends; Physical exercise and appearance."
## [1041] "Factors: Interpersonal violence; indirect trauma (with two subgroups); Other stressors (with two subgroups)."
## [1042] "Factors: Intra psychic; Inter psychic."
## [1043] "Subscales: Meaning; Peace; Faith"
## [1044] "Factor 1: Physical and psychological cravings; Factor 2: Lack of resistance to betel quid; and Factor 3: Maladaptive use."
## [1045] "CFA verified the presence of two factors. Factor 1 included six items generally reflecting helplessness and anger, and Factor 2 included four items tapping self-efficacy."
## [1046] "Factors: Compassion satisfaction; Secondary traumatic stress."
## [1047] "Factors: Attitude of curiosity towards yourself; Raising self-awareness"
## [1048] "Subscales: agoraphobia; panic disorder; generalized anxiety disorder; social anxiety disorder; illness anxiety disorder; obsessive-compulsive disorder; major depressive disorder."
## [1049] "Domains: Deficiency; Disability; Handicap."
## [1050] "Factors: Control against obsessions; Resistance and control against compulsions."
## [1051] "Factors: Accepting, nonreactive, and insightful orientation; Present awareness; Describing of experiences; Open, non-avoidant orientation."
## [1052] "Factors: Appetite and hunger cues; Food responsiveness; Emotional preference."
## [1053] "Dimensions: Job design; Selection; Training; Rewards; Career Development; Employee Participation"
## [1054] "Subscales: Planning; Self-Management; Humor; Search of Social Support; Substance Use; Emotional-Religious-Spiritual Support; Self-Incrimination."
## [1055] "Factor 1: Sleep quality; Factor 2: Insomnia; Factor 3: Drowsiness; Factor 4: Hours; and Factor 5: Problems somatic."
## [1056] "Domains: Problems; Functioning; Risk (to self)"
## [1057] "Factors: To build a relationship with a supportive quality; To support/encourage social skills; To participate in joint social activities; To develop the resident’s self-awareness; To talk to the resident about his/her inner world, feelings and perceptions; To develop the residents’ practical skills."
## [1058] "Subscales: Organizational/Logistic Difficulties (OD); Poor Motivation of Patients (PM); Clinician Doubt/Lack of Expertise (D/LE); Clinician Fear of Side Effects (SE); Clinician Preference for Exposure to be Self-Help (SH)"
## [1059] "Factors: Enthusiasm; Appreciation; and Social Interaction."
## [1060] "Factors: Group‐focused leadership; Individual‐focused leadership."
## [1061] "Factors: RLS Symptom; Symptom Impact."
## [1062] "Factors: Withdrawal; Continuance; Tolerance; Lack of control; Reduction in other activities; Time; Intention."
## [1063] "Subscales: Distress and Positive."
## [1064] "Subscales: Functional limitation; Pain intensity; and Concern with personal appearance."
## [1065] "Factors: Identity Questioning; Identity Denial."
## [1066] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness to Experience; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness"
## [1067] "Factor analysis indicated the presence of three factor-based subscales—Factor 1: Social Concerns; Factor 2: Perfectionism; and Factor 3: Physical Reactions."
## [1068] "Subscales: Pain Avoidance; Cognitive Fusion."
## [1069] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Openness. Subscales: Anxiety; Somatic Complaints; Depression; Anger Proneness; Envy; Venturesomeness; Sociability; Positive Temperament; Ascendance; Frankness; Self-Discipline; Order; Deliberation; Achievement Striving; Dutifulness; Empathy; Modesty; Straightforwardness; Trust; Novelty Seeking; Intellectance; Nontraditionalism."
## [1070] "EFA and CFA indicated the presence of two factors—Factor 1: Curiosity and Exploration, and Factor 2: Courage."
## [1071] "Factors: Executive Control and Attention; Reasoning and Memory"
## [1072] "Subscales: Negative Cognitions of the Self; Negative Cognitions of the World; Self-Blame"
## [1073] "Subscales: Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE); Social Avoidance and Distress–New (SAD-New); Social Avoidance and Distress–General (SAD-General)"
## [1074] "Factor 1: Superstitious Behaviors and Factor 2: Reassurance Seeking."
## [1075] "Factors: Physical; Verbal; Relational; Cyber. Subscales: Victimization; Perpetration."
## [1076] "Factors: Retentive; Expulsive; Gassy; Motoric"
## [1077] "Factors: Ethical leadership; Perceived organizational politics; Moral courage; Internal whistleblowing. Subfactors: General Political Behavior; Go Along to Get Ahead; Pay and Promotion Policies."
## [1078] "Factors: Ethical awareness; Ethical judgment; Perceived moral intensity; Emotions; Internal whistleblowing; Anonymous whistleblowing; External whistleblowing."
## [1079] "Subscales: dysphagia; eating restriction; reflux; odynophagia; pain; discomfort"
## [1080] "Subscales: Impulse Buying; Individualism-Collectivism; Masculinity/Femininity; Power Distance; and Uncertainty Avoidance."
## [1081] "Corporate-level attributes; Consumer benefits; Controlled communication; Uncontrolled communication; Consumer satisfaction; Consumer brand loyalty"
## [1082] "Factors: Parental beliefs about education; Parental beliefs about self-efficacy; Parental involvement opportunities; Parental involvement activities; and Parental beliefs about shared reading."
## [1083] "Factors: Corporate social responsibility performance; Consumer recycling behavior; Environmental impact purchase and use criterion."
## [1084] "Factors: Technology Dependence (TD); Technology Identity (TI); Technology Affection (TA); Technology Social Bonding (TSB); Experiential Satisfaction (ES); Experiential Trust (ET); Experiential Risk (ER); Experiential Sharing Intentions (ESI)."
## [1085] "Subscales: M-Reappraisal; Suppression; Proper Voicing."
## [1086] "Factors: Personal Deficiency Related to Winter (PD); Global Summer Positivism (GS); Global Winter Negativity GW); Effects from Lack of Light (ELL); and Lack of Perceived Seasonal or Weather Effect (LPSWE)."
## [1087] "Factor 1: Revenge; Factor 2: Retaliation; Factor 3: Emotion-State; Factor 4: Forgiveness; and Factor 5: Perception of Self."
## [1088] "Subscales: Patients intention to stop smoking; Advantages and disadvantages of smoking; Awareness that smoking is a problem; The desire to stop smoking; Benefits and inconvenience of quitting smoking; The attitude of the smokers; The personal efficacy and self-confidence of the patient stopping tobacco use; Prediction of success at smoking cessation."
## [1089] "Negative consequences; Difficult to acquire; Not enjoyable; Social disapproval"
## [1090] "Factors: Confidence through caring; supportive learning climate; appreciation of life meaning; control versus flexibility; and professional nurse autonomy."
## [1091] "Factors: Gross motor development; Fine motor coordination and visual motor integration; Emergent numeracy and mathematics; Cognition and executive functioning; Emergent literacy and language."
## [1092] "Scales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition"
## [1093] "Subscales: (1) Heterosexual Intimacy, (2) Protective Paternalism, and (3) Complementary Gender Differentiation."
## [1094] "Factors: Differentiating Emotions; Verbal Sharing of Emotions; Not Hiding Emotions; Bodily Awareness; Others’ Emotions; Analyses of Own Emotions."
## [1095] "Six factors: I was angry; I was bullied; I was kicked; I wanted to be mean; I took pleasure out of it; I wanted to be the boss"
## [1096] "Subscales: Underinvolved; Appropriate; and Overinvolved."
## [1097] "Subscales: Self-Value (SV); Behavioral Respect-Self (BRS); and Behavioral Respect-Others (BRO)."
## [1098] "Factors: (1) Collaboration With Parents, (2) Diabetes Care Activities, (3) Diabetes Problem-Solving, (4) Diabetes Communication, and (5) Goals."
## [1099] "Subscales: lonely-negativity; former partner attachment."
## [1100] "Factors: Facebook Positivity; Facebook Openness; Facebook Assurances."
## [1101] "Domains: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness"
## [1102] "Scales: Supernatural Forces; Social/Stress; Lifestyle; Physical Health; Substance Use; Personal Weakness; and Hereditary/ Biological."
## [1103] "Factor 1: Self-Blame; Factor 2: Self-Shame; and Factor 3: Bad-Parent Self-Beliefs."
## [1104] "Factor analysis supported the use of five scales: Physical mistreatment, Psychological mistreatment, Neglect, Economic mistreatment, and Sexual mistreatment."
## [1105] "Factor 1: Motivation; Factor 2: Self-Efficacy; Factor 3: Perceived Social Support; and Factor 4: Subjective Norm."
## [1106] "Scales: Alienation; Despair; Hope; Despair-Alienation."
## [1107] "The French SAI includes four school situational factors and three response system factors. The situational factors are: Anxiety about Academic Failure and Punishment (AAFP); Anxiety about Aggression (AA); Anxiety about Social Evaluation (ASE); and Anxiety about Academic Evaluation (AAE). The response system factors are: Cognitive Anxiety (CA); Behavioural Anxiety (BA); and Physiological Anxiety (PA)."
## [1108] "Factors: (Male version) Erection concerns thoughts; Lack of erotic thoughts; Age- and body-related thoughts; Negative thoughts toward sex; Worries about partner’s evaluation and failure anticipation thoughts. (Female version) Sexual abuse thoughts; Lack of erotic thoughts; Low self-body image thoughts; Failure and disengagement thoughts; Sexual passivity and control; Partner’s lack of affection."
## [1109] "Subscales: Physical pleasure in touching oneself; Physical pleasure in parental touching; Physical pleasure in touching in a partnership; Disgust; Shame"
## [1110] "Scales: Negative scenarios; Positive scenarios. Factors: Globality; Internality; Stability; Internality/stability."
## [1111] "Factors: Affective Commitment; Costing Commitment; Opportunity Commitment; Normative Commitment."
## [1112] "Factor 1: Premarital Cognitions; Factor 2: Premarital Emotions; and Factor 3: Premarital Behavior."
## [1113] "Factors: Safe life with peace; maintaining physical health; painful emotions; psychological tolerance; maintaining physical–psychological potency; families and relatives support; health care system support; moral–financial support; maintaining social relationships; and worry over the label."
## [1114] "Factors: Positive attitudes to institutional authority; Positive attitudes towards transgression."
## [1115] "Factor 1: Critically read and evaluate qualitative research literature; Factor 2: Critically read and evaluate quantitative research literature; Factor 3: Collective efficacy of the clinical unit; Factor 4: Obtaining science-based knowledge resources; and Factor 5: Understanding and applying theory."
## [1116] "Female version Factors: Sexual Abuse Thoughts; Failure/Disengagement Thoughts; Partner's Lack of Affection; Sexual Passivity and Control; Lack of Erotic Thoughts; Low Self-Body-Image Thoughts. Male version Factors: Failure Anticipation Thoughts; Erection Concern Thoughts; Age and Body Related Thoughts; Negative Thoughts Toward Sex; Lack of Erotic Thoughts."
## [1117] "Latent orthogonal factors: Time/Speed; Accuracy"
## [1118] "Scales: Moral Sensitivity Scale (Second-order factors: Connecting and caring, Responding to diversity, Interpreting situations, Reasoning); Moral Judgment Scale (Second-order factors: Reasoning, Implement decisions, Understanding ethics, Reflecting outcome); Moral Motivation Scale (Second-order factors: Respecting others, Helping and peace, Ethical identity, Act responsibly); Moral Character Scale (Second-order factors: Courage and leadership, Need identification and conflict resolution, Communication, Hard working, Perseverance)."
## [1119] "Factors: (Openness to seeking treatment for emotional problems; Value and need in seeking treatment."
## [1120] "Factor 1: Participating in groups and associations; Factor 2: Consuming cultural events; Factor 3: Carrying out activities requiring expertise or creativity."
## [1121] "Factors: God-centeredness and Asceticism."
## [1122] "Factor 1: Religious orientation and Factor 2: Science acceptance."
## [1123] "Hardiness; Resourcefulness; Optimism."
## [1124] "Factors: Fear; Happiness; Anger; Sadness."
## [1125] "Subscales: Time Demands (9 items); Safety (9 items); Passengers (6 items)"
## [1126] "Subscales: Fear of Rejection or Abandonment (FRA); Desire for Closeness (DC); Preference for Independence (PI)"
## [1127] "Factors: Arranging the caring situation to bring optimal benefit to the client and the family (C/F); Strong will to face difficult situations; Judgment based on the values as a nurse; Judgment based on the standards; Recognition of a discrepancy of intention."
## [1128] "Scales: Exploratory excitability; Novelty Seeking; Harm Avoidance; Reward Dependence; Persistence; Self-Directedness; Cooperativeness; and Self-Transcendence. Subscales: Impulsiveness; Extravagance; Disorderliness; Anticipatory worry; Fear of uncertainty; Shyness; Fatigability; Sentimentality; Openness to warm communication; Attachment; Dependence; Eagerness of effort; Work Hardened; Ambitious; Perfectionist; Responsibility; Purposefulness; Resourcefulness; Self-acceptance; Enlightened second nature; Social acceptance; Empathy; Helpfulness; Compassion; Pure-hearted conscience; Self-forgetful; Transpersonal identification; and Spiritual acceptance."
## [1129] "Factors: Psychological Benefits; Physical Benefits; and Relational Benefits."
## [1130] "Factors: Interpersonal deviance, Education deviance, Time deviance, and Collaboration deviance."
## [1131] "Factors: Work functioning; Interpersonal relationships; Cognitive functioning; Autonomy; Finances."
## [1132] "Factor 1: Using Instrumental Social Support; Factor 2: Humor; Factor 3: Focus on and Venting of Emotions; Factor 4: Substance Use; Factor 5: Acceptance; Factor 6: Suppression of Competing Activities; Factor 7: Turning to Religion; Factor 8: Denial; Factor 9: Behavioral Disengagement; Factor 10: Mental Disengagement; Factor 11: Restraint Coping; Factor 12: Positive Reinterpretation; Factor 13: Using Emotional Social Support; and Factor 14: Planning."
## [1133] "Subscales: Agent; Recipient."
## [1134] "Factor 1: Understanding; Factor 2: Resentful; Factor 3: Insecure; and Factor 4: Enticing."
## [1135] "Factors: Legal antipathy; Legal corruption; Low legal legitimacy."
## [1136] "Factors: Encounter; Participation; Discharge; Support; and Secure environment."
## [1137] "Factors: Labour resources; Communication; Material resources."
## [1138] "Dimensions: Openness; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; Agreeableness; Neuroticism."
## [1139] "Factors: Depressed mood; Deference; Mother estrangement; and Counseling needs."
## [1140] "Factors: Knowledge (Pain assessment knowledge; pain assessment tool knowledge); Confidence (Pain assessment confidence)"
## [1141] "Factor 1: Affective symptoms; Factor 2: Somatic symptoms and school life; Factor 3: Daily habits for menstrual health; Factor 4 Menstrual cycle characteristics, and Factor 5: Attitudes and perceptions on menstruation."
## [1142] "Factor 1: Psychological empowerment; Factor 2: Decision-making empowerment; Factor 3: Social empowerment; and Factor 4: Gender empowerment."
## [1143] "Categories: 1. The teacher communicates learning objectives that focus on historical thinking and reasoning goals; 2. The teacher demonstrates historical thinking or reasoning; 3. The teacher uses historical sources to support historical thinking and reasoning; 4. The teacher makes clear that there are multiple perspectives and interpretations; 5. The teacher provides explicit instructions on historical thinking and reasoning strategies; 6. The teacher engages students in historical thinking and reasoning by individual or group assignments; 7. The teacher engages students in historical thinking and reasoning by a whole-class discussion"
## [1144] "Factors: Individual social responsibility; Tendency of self-display; Subjective norms; Psychological well-being; and Regular sponsorship of African children."
## [1145] "Dimensions: Intrapersonal suffering; Interpersonal suffering; Awareness of suffering; and Spiritual suffering."
## [1146] "Domains of practice: Expert care planning; Integrated care; Interprofessional collaboration; Education; Research and evidence‐based practice; Professional leadership"
## [1147] "Factors: Behavior Problems; Emotive Limitedness; Affective; Cognitive Structures; and Sleep Problems."
## [1148] "Subscales: Emotional intimacy (EI); Personal gratification (PG); Reaction to social circumstances (RS); Desire to reproduce (DR)"
## [1149] "Factors: Relational resources; Personal resources; Contextual resources."
## [1150] "Factors: (1) General self-concept, (2) Leadership, (3) Communication, (4) Knowledge, (5) Staff relationship, and (6) Caring."
## [1151] "Factors: Recreational; Physical; Social; Skill-based; Educational; Volunteering/employment; Homecare/chores."
## [1152] "Subscales: Fake identity; Ulterior motivation; Service failure; Distrust; Psychological discomfort; Negative electronic word-of-mouth; Repeat purchase intention."
## [1153] "Subscales: Attitudes toward single checking; Advantages of single checking."
## [1154] "Factors: Positive attitude; Attitude toward health; Everyday behavior. Subfactors: Hope; Sense of fulfillment; Social support; Care about one’s health; Wakefulness; Eating in moderation; Lack of self-control; Correction of bad habits"
## [1155] "Behavioral components: Component 1 includes the negative emotional responses of the user, component 2 subsumes positive emotional responses, and component 3 contains physical avoidance behaviors."
## [1156] "Subscales: Critical thinking and reasoning, General clinical skills, Basic biomedical science, Communication and teamwork capability, Caring, Ethics, Accountability, and Lifelong learning."
## [1157] "Subscales: Fear-Distress; Sadness-Depression; Anger; Disgust; Anxious-Apprehension; Negative Social Emotions."
## [1158] "Factors: A challenging activity that requires skill; Immersion; Clear goals and feedback; Concentration on the task at hand; The paradox of control; Autotelic experience"
## [1159] "Subscales: Familiarity; Utility; Motion; Controllability; Toughness."
## [1160] "Factor 1: Negative reinforcement and Factor 2: Desire and intention."
## [1161] "Factors: Skills for care; Skills related to the role of mother; Acceptance of the baby; Relational expectations towards the baby; and The affects that the mother develops towards pregnancy, labor, and childbirth."
## [1162] "The measure includes four subscales: \"Excessive self-efficacy for managing stress,\" \"Insensitivity to stress,\" \"Overgeneralization of stress,\" and \"Evasive attitude towards stress.\""
## [1163] "Factors: Insincerity and communicative opacity; Manipulation; Denial and relapse; Mystification and distrust; and Distorted perception of reality."
## [1164] "Factors: Perceived Parental Control; Perceived Parental Support."
## [1165] "Subscales: Body Areas and Appearance Satisfaction (BAAS); Appearance Orientation (AO); Weight Perception and Concerns (WPC)"
## [1166] "Factors: Resilience; Intention to leave; Work engagement; and Abusive supervision."
## [1167] "Factors: Information Sharing; Empowerment; Outcome Expectation; Self-Disclosure; Similarity; Communication Openness; Attachment to Airbnb; Attachment to Airbnb Peer Hosts; Psychological Ownership; Organizational Citizenship Behavior toward Airbnb; Organizational Citizenship Behavior toward Peer hosts."
## [1168] "Factor 1: Socialization; Factor 2: Relaxation & escape; Factor 3: Travel-related novelty; Factor 4: Sexual desire/excitement seeking; Factor 5: Sex-related learning; Factor 6: Sexual mastery; Factor 7: Social prestige; and Factor 8: Business/pragmatic purpose."
## [1169] "Factors (first-order): Challenge; Feedback; Autonomy; Immersion; Social Interaction; Self-Efficacy; SETA Effectiveness; Psychological Ownership; and Security Compliance Intention. Flow is conceptualized as a second-order construct comprising Challenge, Feedback, Autonomy, Immersion, and Social Interaction dimensions."
## [1170] "Factors: Training; Transfer of training; Perceived organizational support (POS); Job satisfaction; Customer service quality; POS Training (this sixth interaction latent variable was created by combining one Training item and one POS item)"
## [1171] "Subscales: Family Strengths (FS); Family Communication (FC); Family Difficulties (FD)"
## [1172] "Factors: Psychiatric care and Treatment, Personal and Social function, Community and Daily living, and Money management."
## [1173] "Factors: Hostility; Physical aggression; Impulsivity; Anger proneness."
## [1174] "Factors: Family honor; Social honor; Feminine honor; and Masculine honor."
## [1175] "Factors: Human growth; Provided support; Minimizing expected emotional damage; Preparation for negative situations; Facilitation of understanding and care for others; Smoothing human relationships; Prevent meaningless loss; Self-handicapping; Harmony with others."
## [1176] "Factors: Exploratory engagement; Placatory/evasive engagement; Passive resistance; Active resistance."
## [1177] "Subscales: Dependency-Oriented Psychological Control (DPC) ; Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control (APC)"
## [1178] "Factors: Leisure belief; Increasing positive mood; Improving social relationships; Improving the environment."
## [1179] "Factors: Good teaching; Clear goals and standards; Approximate workload; Approximate assessment; and Generic skills."
## [1180] "Subscales: Emotional blunting; Lack of initiative; and Lack of interest."
## [1181] "Factors: Conqueror, Savior, and heroic Identification."
## [1182] "Factors: Sensory Experience; Food/drink; Social Interests/hobbies."
## [1183] "Dimensions: Workload; Segmentation culture; Life satisfaction; Time-based work interference with leisure; Strain-based work interference with leisure; Behavioural leisure attitude."
## [1184] "Factors: Cultivating Emotion Strategies; Understanding Emotion Connotations."
## [1185] "Factors: Participation limitation; Stigma; Behavior."
## [1186] "Subscales: Negative; Positive."
## [1187] "Factors: Desire for success and challenge; Attitude toward entrepreneurship; Attitude toward money; Social norms; Perceived Behavioral Control; Entrepreneurship education; Experiences in Entrepreneurship; Government's supportive policies; Creativity; Entrepreneurial intentions."
## [1188] "Factors: Technology-Sensing Capability (TSC); Market-Sensing Capability (MSC); Exploratory Innovation (EXI); Exploitative Innovation (EII); Firm Performance (FP)"
## [1189] "Subscales: Innovativeness; proactiveness; risk-taking; dominance; self-efficacy; firm performance."
## [1190] "Factors: Motivation; Communication; Coaching; Facilitation; Changing the mindsets."
## [1191] "Factors: Informativeness; Credibility; Entertainment; Irritation; Incentives; Advertising value; Flow experience; Emotional value; Web design quality; Brand awareness; Purchase intention."
## [1192] "Factors: Premarital sexuality; masturbation; homosexuality; pornography; abortion; and sexual coercion."
## [1193] "Factors: Content and Facilitation; Emotional Support; Structural and Informational Support."
## [1194] "Factors: Perceived role stress; Benefit finding; School impact; Social impact; Family impact; Social recognition of role"
## [1195] "Factors: Health Care Provider Information; Patient Information; Health Care Provider Facilitation; and Patient Participation in Decision-Making."
## [1196] "Five factors: rational use of time (RUT); quality of teaching behavior chain (QTBC), match degree (MD); quality of using resource and technology (QUR&T); rationality of primitive content (RPrC)."
## [1197] "Sections: bed; chair; static balance; walking; dynamic balance (without a gait aid)"
## [1198] "Three unidimensional constructs: intellectual competence; physical/manual competence; interpersonal competence."
## [1199] "Factors: Feelings; Appearance; Motherhood; Biological sex characteristics; Strength; and Weakness."
## [1200] "Factor 1: Family Support; Factor 2: Confidant-Friend Support; Factor 3: School Support; Factor 4: Adjustment; Factor 5: Sense of Struggle; and Factor 6: Empathy."
## [1201] "Factors: Disqualification and negative attitude; Avoidance of contact; Influence of the custodial parent; Arguments for the rejection; Extension of the rejection to the social network; and Arguments that do not correspond to the child's age."
## [1202] "Factors: Perceived race-related concerns, preoccupations and emotional distress; Social dysfunction."
## [1203] "Factors: Relatives; Neighbors; Friends."
## [1204] "Scores were calculated by dichotomizing every answer (correct/incorrect) and were summarized for each domain. The questionnaire has no total score."
## [1205] "Factor 1: Communication barriers; Factor 2: Confidence; Factor 3: Timing of Discussion; Factor 4: Patient-family relationship; and Factor 5: Patient-provider relationship."
## [1206] "Factors: Presence; Search."
## [1207] "Factor 1: Work-family conflict; Factor 2: Self-promotion; Factor 3: Ingratiation; Factor 4: Emotional Exhaustion; Factor 5: Intrinsic motivation; and Factor 6: Proactive behavior."
## [1208] "Factors: Apology; Compensation; Voice; Forgiveness-Absence; Forgiveness-Presence; Reconciliation; Repatronage; Negative Word Of Mouth."
## [1209] "Factors: Privacy concern; Perceived level of control; Desire for privacy; Perceived ad benefits; Intrusiveness; Brand ethics; Privacy management; Attitude towards behavioral advertisements; Avoidance of behavioral advertisements; and Brand romance."
## [1210] "Factors: Brand experience (Sensory dimension, Affective dimension, Behavioral dimension, Intellectual dimension); Brand commitment; Harmonious brand passion; Obsessive brand passion; Brand attitude; Customer satisfaction."
## [1211] "Subscales: Parental Strategies; Child Outcomes."
## [1212] "Factors: Skill Discretion; Decision Authority; Job Demands; Job Insecurity; Job Readjustment; Family Support."
## [1213] "Factors: Trust; Norm of reciprocity; Power distance; High-low context; Social decision-making constraints."
## [1214] "Factors: Agreeableness; Extraversion; Conscientiousness; Emotional Stability; Honesty; Intellect."
## [1215] "Factors: Sensation search; Risk assumption; Perceived competition; Risk perception; and Competitiveness."
## [1216] "Subscales: Concern Dieting; and Weight Fluctuation."
## [1217] "Factors: Social interaction; School performance."
## [1218] "Subscales: Validity; Purpose; Disillusionment; Parents"
## [1219] "Factors: Designing and collecting; Reporting, interpreting, and presenting; Conceptualizing and collaborating; Planning; Funding; Protecting"
## [1220] "Factors: Pessimism; Optimism; General hopelessness."
## [1221] "Subscales: Acceptance of defects; Emotion regulation; Adaptability; Self-efficacy; External support; Frustration coping."
## [1222] "Domains: Affection; Responsiveness; Encouragement; Teaching"
## [1223] "Factors: In-group bias, Paternal cronyism, and Reciprocal exchange of favor."
## [1224] "Factors: Customer; Employee; Environment; Community; Society; Shareholder; Supplier; Company evaluation; Purchase intention; Customer-company identification."
## [1225] "Factors: Positive Feelings; Negative Feelings."
## [1226] "Subscales: Family; Friends; Living environment; School; and Self."
## [1227] "Factors: Fear; Lack of Positive Anticipation; Isolation; Riskiness"
## [1228] "Factors: Interest in Science, Interest in Technology, and Interest in Mathematics."
## [1229] "Dimensions: Drive; Regressive Cognition; Perceptual Disinhibition; Sensation; Icarian Imagery"
## [1230] "Subscales: Use of the mobile telephone, Use of video games, Use of television, Use of the Internet, Lying about the use, Relaxing with the use, and Attempts to stop the use."
## [1231] "Subscales: Impulsiveness; Negative Thinking; Thrill Seeking; and Sensitivity to Anxiety."
## [1232] "Factors: School/employment dedication, Social isolation, and Life discipline."
## [1233] "Factors: Attitudes toward peace and Attitudes toward war."
## [1234] "Factors: Comprehension and Numeracy; Health-related Terms."
## [1235] "Factors: Stability; Vitality. Subscales: Stability; Vitality; Pleasure; Arousal."
## [1236] "Factors: Opportunity; information; support; resources; formal power; informal power; global empowerment."
## [1237] "Factors: Cognitive (personal investment and personal cost); affective (positive and negative feelings); symbolic (meaning, compensation for parenthood, continuity, and burden); and behavioral (emotional support, contribution to upbringing, and instrumental support)."
## [1238] "Factors: Overwhelmed, Controlled, and Resilient."
## [1239] "Subscales: Developmental/Social; Biomedical; and Behavior Problems."
## [1240] "Factors: Social Flexibility; Perseveration; Respondent Discomfort; Adaptive Coping; and Atypicality."
## [1241] "Subscales: Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs; Non-Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs"
## [1242] "Factors: Trust in Competence; Trust in Relationship."
## [1243] "Subscales: Teamwork climate; Safety Climate; Job satisfaction; Stress recognition; Perception of ward management; Perception of hospital management; and Working condition."
## [1244] "Factors: Adjustment method of head VR glasses; Design aspect of VR glasses; Installation of the VR glasses."
## [1245] "Elements: satisfaction with the system; emotions experienced during system use; and system to be evaluated."
## [1246] "Factors: Seeking Distraction; Withdrawal; Actively Approaching; Seeking Social Support; and Ignoring."
## [1247] "Factors: Barriers to adherence and Positive beliefs about medication."
## [1248] "Subscales: Social network app overuse (S-scale); Recreational app overuse (R-scale); and Information overload (I-scale)."
## [1249] "Factors: Religious Integration; Religious and Social Morality; Nonritual Social Religious Activity; and Ritual Attendance."
## [1250] "Factors: Family therapy; Motivational interviewing/Cognitive-behavioral therapy; Drug counseling."
## [1251] "First Order Factors: Autonomy (AUT); Self-initiation (SIN); Self-Direction (SDIR); Pathways (PTH); Empowerment (EMP); Self-Realization (SRE); Control Expectancy (EXP); Volitional Actions (VOL); Agentic Actions (AGEN); Action-Control Beliefs (ACC). Second Order Factors: Autonomy (AUT); Self-initiation (SIN); Self-Direction (SDIR); Pathways (PTH); Empowerment (EMP); Self-Realization (SRE); Expectancy (EXP)."
## [1252] "Subscales: Work scheduling and output demands; Physical demands; Mental and social demands; Flexibility demands."
## [1253] "Factors: Measuring negative expectancies; Process/outcome expectancies; Expectancies for a positive therapeutic relationship."
## [1254] "Factors: Deliberate risk taking (DRT) and Precautionary behaviors (PB)."
## [1255] "Factors: Proper Use of Health Care Resources (PUHCR); Diet (D); Anger and Stress (A&S); Substance Use (SU)."
## [1256] "Subscales: Emotional blunting, Lack of initiative, and Lack of interest."
## [1257] "Factors: Identity; Consequences; Control; Timeline; Illness coherence; Treatment burden; Prioritization; Causal relationship; Activity restriction; Emotional representations."
## [1258] "Subscales: With self-regulation; Without self-regulation. Volitional action construct (autonomy and self-initiation); facet-representative parcels for the agentic action construct (self-regulation, self-direction, and pathways thinking); and facet-representative parcels for the action-control beliefs and attitudes construct (self-realization, psychological empowerment, and control expectancies and agency and causality beliefs)."
## [1259] "Factors: Theoretical knowledge; Practical knowledge; Critical thinking; Self-awareness; and Citizenship."
## [1260] "Subscales: Impulsiveness; Venturesomeness; Empathy"
## [1261] "Factors: Positive/Likelihood of Showing Expression; Negative Emotions/Frequency of Experience; Negative Emotions/Likelihood of Showing Expression"
## [1262] "Factors: Program evaluation skill level; Interest in program evaluation; Program Evaluation Training Importance; Confidence in Conducting Program Evaluation."
## [1263] "Factors: Distress; Well-being."
## [1264] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression."
## [1265] "Factors: BDA Planning; BDA Investment Decision-Making; BDA Coordination; BDA Control; SC Preparedness; SC Alertness; SC Agility"
## [1266] "Factors: Interactivity; Autonomy; Visual Aesthetics; Self-Expression; Satisfaction; Pleasure; and Product Attachment."
## [1267] "Factors: Firm generated content; Brand loyalty; Brand awareness; Electronic word of mouth; Purchase intention."
## [1268] "Factors: Perceived efficacy; Personal/professional change resistance; Certainty on results; Recognition of theoretical and procedural training; Disposition to actualization (continuing education)."
## [1269] "Factor: Memory Ability"
## [1270] "Factors: Self-confidence; Attitude and mental preparation; Stress and anxiety control; Concentration; Motivation."
## [1271] "Factors: Disorganization; Linguistic control; Emptiness"
## [1272] "Factors: Rumination; Suppression."
## [1273] "Factors: Confidence in teaching; Motivation for teaching; Preparedness to teach; Preparedness to lead initiatives; Expected influence on participants."
## [1274] "Subscales: Depressive Symptoms; Inertia; Vegetative Symptoms; Irritability/Aggression; Behavioral Dysregulation; Psychotic Symptoms."
## [1275] "Factors: Communication skills; Creativity; Problem solving; Teamwork; Planning ability; Cross-cultural capability; Adaptability; Ability to integrate resources."
## [1276] "Factor 1: Relationship to the Organization; Factor 2: Organization as Mediator; and Factor 3: Bond to the Community."
## [1277] "Factors: Blatant group discrimination; Subtle group discrimination; Blatant individual discrimination; Subtle individual discrimination."
## [1278] "Factors: Teacher beliefs about preschoolers and math; confidence in helping preschoolers learn math; and teachers’ confidence in their personal math abilities."
## [1279] "Factors: nurturance; discipline; play; routine"
## [1280] "Subscales: Bodily shame; Cognitive shame; Existential shame."
## [1281] "Factors: Satisfaction of health and safety needs; satisfaction of economic and family needs; satisfaction of social needs; satisfaction of esteem needs; satisfaction of actualization needs; satisfaction of knowledge needs; and satisfaction of aesthetics needs."
## [1282] "Factors: Persistent walking; Spatial disorientation; Eloping behavior; Shadowing; and Routinized walking."
## [1283] "Factors: Psychological/Emotional Conflict; Time Management; Neglect Work."
## [1284] "Subscales: Stereotype awareness (\"Aware\"); Stereotype agreement (\"Agree\"); Self-esteem decrement (\"Harm\")."
## [1285] "Factors: Meaning; Enthusiasm; Decision making; Autonomy; Trust in competence."
## [1286] "Factors: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [1287] "Subscales: Basic Mobility; Daily Activities; Applied Cognition."
## [1288] "Factors: External regulation; Introjected regulation; Identified regulation; Integrated regulation; Intrinsic regulation."
## [1289] "Pro‐environmental behavior; Environmentally friendly behavior; Ecotourism guideline behavior; Site‐specific ecological behavior; Socioculturally beneficial behavior; Economically beneficial behavior; and Learning behavior."
## [1290] "Factors: Lack of punctuality; Lack of planning"
## [1291] "Factors: Personal self-esteem; Team-based self-esteem; Personal integrity; Self-competence."
## [1292] "Factors: Disrupted schedule; Financial problems; Lack of family support; Health problems; and Caregiver’s self-esteem."
## [1293] "Factors: Self-Promotion; Abusive Leadership; Unpredictability; Authoritarianism. Subscales: Abusive Leadership; Authoritarian Leadership; Narcissism; Self-promotion; Unpredictability."
## [1294] "Subscales (for both Perpetration and Victimization): Negotiation; Psychological aggression; Physical aggression; Sexual coercion; Injury."
## [1295] "Subscales: Knowledge; Skills; Encounters/Situations; Awareness; Cultural Desire"
## [1296] "Factors: Personal spiritual practices; Spiritual practices; Physical spiritual practices; and Interpersonal spiritual practices"
## [1297] "Subscales: Emotional reluctance; Poor awareness."
## [1298] "Subscales: Digit sequencing; Symbol coding; Tower of London; Token motor task; Verbal fluency; and Verbal memory."
## [1299] "Factors: Creative potential; Practiced creativity; Perceived organizational support."
## [1300] "One-factor solution (psychological flexibility)."
## [1301] "Factor: Global social physique anxiety."
## [1302] "Factors: Dynamism; Meddlesomeness; Mediating; Arrogance; and Approachability."
## [1303] "Factors: Empathy; Active Support; Compassionate; Antagonism; Egoism; and Hostility."
## [1304] "Factors: Emotional Manipulation; Defection Threat; Violence Threat."
## [1305] "Factors: Student ratio; Abilities/skills; Power/being."
## [1306] "Factors: Athletes identity; Body and sport; Training for weight regulation; Body and parents; Socially prescribed perfectionism and athletic performance; and Distrust of the team."
## [1307] "Dimensions: Apprehension of Knowledge; Utilization of Knowledge."
## [1308] "Factors: Pleasure and relaxation; Tolerance; Lack of control; Withdrawal and craving."
## [1309] "Factors: Protectiveness; Supervision beliefs; Risk tolerance; Fate beliefs."
## [1310] "Domains/Sub-Domains: Lesson Design and Implementation; Content (Propositional Knowledge; Procedural Knowledge); Classroom Culture (Communicative Interactions; Student–Teacher Relationships)."
## [1311] "Domains: Child; Maladaptive Coping; Maladaptive Parent; Healthy Adult. Subscales: Vulnerable Child; Angry Child; Enraged Child; Impulsive Child; Undisciplined Child; Happy Child; Compliant Surrender; Detached Protector; Detached Self-Soother Child; Self-aggrandizer Child; Bully and Attack Mode Child; Punishing Parent; Demanding Parent; Healthy Adult"
## [1312] "Factors: Positive set of thoughts and results (\"Positive set\"); Negative set of thoughts and results (\"Negative set\")."
## [1313] "Factors: Theoretical knowledge; Practical knowledge; Critical thinking; Self-awareness; and Citizenship."
## [1314] "Factors: Total efficacy; Severity; Susceptibility."
## [1315] "Factors: Identity; Self-direction; Empathy; Intimacy."
## [1316] "Factors: Job Content; Work Environment; Work–Home Interference; Relationships; Lack of Stability; Development Possibilities; Home–Work Interference; Tools."
## [1317] "Factors: Emotional evaluation of Status; Situation; Self; Power."
## [1318] "Factors: Communication; Provision of information; Clinical visits and accessibility; General courtesy of staff; Staff liaison."
## [1319] "Model Constructs: Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Sense of trust; Experience expectation; Intention to donate."
## [1320] "Normative Factors: Friend Identity (NR); School Identity (NR). Informational Factors: Friend Identity (IF); School Identity (IF)."
## [1321] "Subscales: Sexual Inexperience Distress; Masturbation/Pornography Remorse; Libido Distain; Body Dissatisfaction; Dystonic Sexual-Actualization; and Sexual Performance Insecurity."
## [1322] "Factors: Physical and psychological changes; Coping in daily life; Health of the mother and baby; Maternal role; Family support; Healthcare services; Social atmosphere; and Reconciliation of work life."
## [1323] "Subscales: Positive attitudes toward care for the dying person; Perception of patient- and family-centered care. The authors note that the subscales need to be explored in other Swedish samples."
## [1324] "Factors: Communication skills; Communication etiquette."
## [1325] "Factors: Deep approach; Superficial approach."
## [1326] "Subscales: Faking Orgasm Scale—Sexual Intercourse Subscale; Faking Orgasm Scale—Oral Sex Subscale. Factors: Altruistic Deceit; Fear and Insecurity; Elevated Arousal; Sexual Adjournment; Insecure Avoidance; Fear of Dysfunction."
## [1327] "Factors: Feeling And Thinking Support; Learning Process Support; Evaluation Process."
## [1328] "Subscales: Experiential knowledge provided/received; Emotional support received; Humor exchanged; Unwanted behavior received; Exchanges outside meetings."
## [1329] "Subscale: Bonding capital; Bridging capital."
## [1330] "Factors: Enacted stigma; disclosure concerns; negative self-image; and concern with public attitudes."
## [1331] "Subscales: Stigma; Emotional wellbeing; Pain; Activities of daily living; Social/family life."
## [1332] "Factors: Household Needs; Informational Needs; Financial Needs; Health Needs; Social Support Needs."
## [1333] "Subtests: Copying diagram (15 points); Passage comprehension (5 points); Recall of drawing (15 points); Recall of answers (5 points); Recognition of flowers (4 points); No flowers correctly recognized (2 points) New questions (4 points)."
## [1334] "Factors: Reciprocity; Justification; Reflexivity; Ideal role taking; Sincerity."
## [1335] "Factors: Physical symptoms; Emotional distress; Headache/jaw symptoms; and Urological symptoms."
## [1336] "Factors: Reflection; Rumination; Preoccupation With Others’ Perceptions."
## [1337] "Factors: Psychosocial; Physical."
## [1338] "Factor 1: Daily Activities; Factor 2: Perceived Support; Factor 3: Social Life; and Factor 4: Emotions."
## [1339] "Factor 1: Research; Factor 2: Entertainment; and Factor 3: Operational."
## [1340] "Factor 1: Internal; Factor 2: External-family; Factor 3: External-peers; and Factor 4: External-spiritual."
## [1341] "Domains: urinary problems; bowel problems; sexual dysfunction"
## [1342] "Student perception factors: ‘SWN support during placement’; ‘clinical facilitator support during placement’; ‘welcoming and acceptance'. SWN factors: ‘support to meet learning needs’; ‘confidence and competence: reflections on learning’; ‘welcoming students to the unit’."
## [1343] "Unidimensional."
## [1344] "Subscale: Self-Injurious behavior; Stereotyped behavior; Aggressive/destructive behavior."
## [1345] "Subscales: Anxiety-based performance deficits; exaggerated safety/caution behaviors; and hostile/aggressive behaviors."
## [1346] "Factors: Self-Worth; Control the World; World of Justice; Secure World."
## [1347] "Factors: Medication compliance; Medication management; Symptom management; Maintain daily life and social functioning; Manage health recourse and support; Self-efficacy."
## [1348] "Factors: One factor (perceived devaluation-discrimination); Two factors (perceived devaluation; perceived discrimination)."
## [1349] "Subscales: Culture and values supporting use of research evidence to inform decisions; Setting of priorities for obtaining research evidence; Ability to acquire research evidence to inform decisions; Capacity to assess quality and applicability of the research evidence and to interpret the results so that they inform priority decisions; Use of research evidence to inform recommendations and decisions; Monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs; Continuing professional development on evidence-based topics."
## [1350] "Subscales: Pervasive Developmental Disorders; ADHD; Intellectual Disabilities"
## [1351] "Dimensions: Instrumental support; Informative support; Positive emotional support; Negative emotional support; Positive social companionship; Negative social companionship; Limitations; Satisfaction."
## [1352] "Factors (Temperaments): Dysthymic; Cyclothymic; Anxious"
## [1353] "Factors: Commitment; Control; and Challenge."
## [1354] "Subscales: Beliefs about the scientific validity of complementary and alternative methods; Attitudes towards holistic medicine in general."
## [1355] "Factor 1: Conflict; Factor 2: Closeness; and Factor 3: Dependency."
## [1356] "Factors: Nurse Manager Ability, Leadership, and Support of Nurses (Liderazgo y Gestion); Nursing Foundations for Quality of Care (Calidad del cuidado brindado); Nurse Participation in Hospital Affairs (Participadon del profesional en la institucion); Staffing and Resource Adequacy (Reconocimiento y recursos); Collegial Nurse-Physician Relations (Relaciones de practica conjunta)."
## [1357] "Factors: Principles of nursing care; clinical guidelines; nursing interventions; ethical activity and familiarity of health care laws; decision-making; development work and collaboration factors."
## [1358] "Factors: Facilitators; Barriers."
## [1359] "Factor 1: Safety culture; Factor 2: Teamwork culture; Factor 3: Error disclosure culture; Factor 4: Experiences with professionalism; and Factor 5: Comfort expressing professional concerns."
## [1360] "Factors: Ethnic identity exploration; Commitment."
## [1361] "Factor 1: Care for Others/Goal Setting; Factor 2: Self-Responsibility; Factor 3: Self-Control/Respect."
## [1362] "Higher-order factors: Agency; Structure. Subscales: Want and Ability; External conditions; Being met."
## [1363] "Measurement Model Constructs: Entertainment; Education; Escapism; Esthetics; Hospitableness; Pleasure; Arousal; Memorability; Brand Loyalty Attitudes"
## [1364] "Subscales: Task; Ego."
## [1365] "This measure consists of the following three factor analytically-derived subscales: Resource Manipulation/Violence, Commitment Manipulation, and Defection Threat."
## [1366] "Subscales: Distress; Atypicality; Pain."
## [1367] "Factor 1: Mood-Related Signs; Factor 2: Behavioral Disturbance; Factor 3: Physical Signs; Factor 4: Cyclic Functions; and Factor 5: Ideational Disturbance."
## [1368] "Dimensions: Degree; Severity; Distress; Degree of interference with activities of daily living; and Timing."
## [1369] "Factors: Level of fatigue; Personal body care."
## [1370] "Knowledge domain factors (15): Production and productivity software; Word processing software; Development methodology, software, and programming; Organizational development and management; Learning theory and human performance technology; Assessment, evaluation, and teaching techniques; Curriculum standards and frameworks; Learning management software and higher education; Instructional design, development, and online facilitation; Computer and communication hardware; Web and interface design; Cloud and mobile technologies; Content management systems and learning objects; Project management; Games, simulations, and the flipped classroom; Copyright laws, policies, and procedures in training programs. Skills domain factors (7): Communication, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills; Development and production skills; Leadership and team development skills; Business and research skills; Customer service and resolution skills; Project and quality management skills; Computer and database programming skills. Ability domain factors (9): Project management and providing feedback; Teaching and delivery of instruction; Application of instructional design, development, and evaluation; Analysis and strategic management; Adaptability to technology and process; Work and communication with diverse constituencies; Trouble-shooting and use of hardware; Initiative and focus; Leadership and ethical judgment."
## [1371] "Subscales: Distress due to inattention/disorganization; Distress due to hyperactivity/impulsivity; Distress due to self-esteem deficit."
## [1372] "Unidimensional."
## [1373] "Subscales: Material conditions; Lifestyle and culture."
## [1374] "Factors: Interpersonal; Intrapersonal. Subfactors: Affect Regulation; Self-Punishment; Anti-Dissociation; Anti-Suicide; Marking Distress; Introspective Mechanism; Replacement of Suffering; Self-Care; Escape Mechanism; Interpersonal Boundaries; Peer Bonding; Interpersonal Influence; Autonomy and Toughness; Revenge."
## [1375] "Dimensions: Risk factors older person; Risk factors key figure; Signals of elder abuse and mistreatment"
## [1376] "Subscales: Patient’s personal status; Patient’s knowledge; Patient’s coping ability; Patient’s expected support."
## [1377] "Factors: Concern over Mistakes; Parental Expectations; Parental Criticism; Doubts about Actions; Personal Standards."
## [1378] "Factors: Psychological; Academic."
## [1379] "This measure consists of two factor analytically-derived subscales: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal."
## [1380] "Factors: Professional support; Perceived safety; Participation; Own capacity."
## [1381] "This measure consists of the following two factor analytically-derived subscales: Intuitive Understanding and Vicarious Experience."
## [1382] "This measure consists of three factor analytically-derived subscales: Dissociative Features, Emotional Distress Features, and Syncope Features."
## [1383] "Factors: Performance; Social value; Educational value; Emotional value; and Marketing activities."
## [1384] "This measure consists of the following factors: Intention of CDISV; Long-term orientation (LTO: Continuity, Futurity, and Perseverance); Value identification; Trusted relationship fulfilment; and Growth needs fulfilment."
## [1385] "This measure consists of the following factor analytically-derived subscales: Understanding local travel environment; Cross-cultural communication and Interaction skills; Understanding local Culture; Language ability; Understanding local life habit; Understanding cultural backgrounds of tour members; Cultural Empathy; Cultural affinity; Cultural mediation; and Cultural adaptability."
## [1386] "This measure consists of five factor analytically-derived subscales: Self Expression; Enrichment of Dining Experience; Social Connection; Virtual Community Engagement; and Special Occasion Memory."
## [1387] "This measure consists of the following four constructs (factors): Green training (TRA); Green performance management (PEM); Green employee involvement (EIN); and Organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment (OCBE)."
## [1388] "Factors: U.S. identity exploration; U.S. identity affirmation; U.S. identity resolution."
## [1389] "Subscales: Health Care Service and Information Needs; Emotional and Psychological Needs; Work and Social Security Needs; Communication and Family Support Needs."
## [1390] "This measure consists of four factor analytically-derived subscales: Competence, Benevolence, Integrity, and Fairness."
## [1391] "Factors: Causal Subscale: Cancer and treatment factors; Psychological factors; Behavioural factors; Physical factors; and Uncontrollable factors. IPQ- R: Timeline; Consequences; Personal Control; Treatment Control; Illness coherence; Timeline cyclical; and Emotional Representation."
## [1392] "Criteria: Recognizing impacts; Taking responsibility; Providing leadership; Issue literacy"
## [1393] "This measure consists of three factor analytically-derived subscales: Food responsiveness, Slowness in eating, and Satiety responsiveness."
## [1394] "Factors: Parents’ reported behaviours (reinforcement, encouragement, instruction and modelling); athletes’ perceptions of parents’ behaviours (perceived reinforcement, encouragement, instruction and modelling); and athletes’ psychological variables conducive to achievement in their sport (social self-efficacy, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and self-regulation)."
## [1395] "Factors: Practice; Attitudes; Knowledge/skills related to research; Knowledge/skills related to practice."
## [1396] "Subscales: Commercial truth; Collaboration; Control; Product value."
## [1397] "This measure consists of five subscales: Identifying Variables, Operationally Defining, Identifying Testable Hypotheses, Data and Graph Interpretation, and Experimental Design."
## [1398] "Factors: Core symptoms; Abilities; Mobility; Sleep; Thriving."
## [1399] "Screening Categories: Cognition/perception; Physical/sensation; Psychosocial; Medications; Other"
## [1400] "Scale: Childhood Trait Scale."
## [1401] "This measure consists of three factor analytically-derived subscales: Family strengths, Difficulties and Communication."
## [1402] "This measure consists of six factor analytically-derived subscales: Adventure, Gratification, Role, Value, Social, and Idea."
## [1403] "Factors: Strengths and adaptability; Overwhelmed by difficulties; Disrupted communication"
## [1404] "Domains: Divergent Graphic; Integrative Graphic; Divergent Verbal; Integrative Verbal"
## [1405] "Factors: Respect and safety; Information and participation; Rehabilitation interventions."
## [1406] "Factors: Male: Macho beliefs; sexual conservatism; control over sexuality. Female: Sexual conservatism; affection primacy; control over sexuality; age related beliefs."
## [1407] "Factors: Support from parents; Support from coach; Need for competence; Need for relatedness; Need for autonomy; Autonomous motivation; Controlled motivation; Keeping winning in proportion; Acceptance of cheating; Acceptance of gamesmanship; Self-reported cheating; Self-reported yellow cards; Yellow-cards given by the referee."
## [1408] "Higher-second-order construct: Perceived Person-Group Fit. Dimensions: value congruence; shared interests; perceived demographic similarity; needs-supplies match; goal similarity; common workstyle; complementary attributes"
## [1409] "Factors: Information; Healthcare access and continuity; Personal and emotional needs; Worries about future; Financial needs."
## [1410] "QLQ-C30 Domains: Physical; Role; Emotional; Cognitive; Social; Fatigue; Nausea; Pain; Global health status; Dyspnoea; Insomnia; Appetite Loss; Constipation; Diarrhoea; Financial; QLQ-OH15 Domains: OH-QoL; Sticky saliva; Sensitivity; Sore mouth; Dentures; Information"
## [1411] "Subscales: Equality; Need; Equity; Entitlement"
## [1412] "Factors: Activity; co-morbidity; diagnosis beliefs; emotions; harm & blame; pain control; and work."
## [1413] "Factors: Psychological well-being (PsW); Self-esteem (SE); Relationships with family (RFa); Relationships with friends (RFr); Resilience (RE); Physical well-being (PhW); Autonomy (AU); Sentimental life (SL)"
## [1414] "Factors: Appreciation of Cultural Diversity (ACD); Attitudes towards Integration (ATI); Ethno-Relative Worldview (ERW); Goals of Intercultural Education (GIE). Higher Order Factor: Beliefs, Values, and Goals (BVG)."
## [1415] "Factors: Medical and obstetric risks/death; Psychosocial changes during pregnancy; Birth expectation."
## [1416] "Factor structure: The authors found support for use of the InDI-A as a unidimensional scale."
## [1417] "Scales: Technology Innovation Acceptance (Benefit of innovation; Innovation compatibility); Organizational Innovation Climate (Organizational learning; Innovative culture; Job autonomy; Group cohesion); Innovative Teaching Behavior with Information and Communication Technology (Outcomes of innovative teaching; Innovative teaching materials and methods)."
## [1418] "Theoretical Dimensions (note: the 'Identity' and 'Causes' dimensions were not included in the final CFA model, but analyzed separately in EFA): (1) identity; (2) causes; (3) timeline chronic-acute; (4) consequences; (5) personal control; (6) treatment control; (7) illness coherence; (8) emotional representation. A 'timeline cyclical' dimension was removed from the caregiver version following CFA."
## [1419] "Factors: Moral authenticity; Type authenticity."
## [1420] "Factors: Mental guidance; Coach relations; Task instruction; Career assistance; Role modeling; and Friendship."
## [1421] "Factors: Attitude toward multilingualism; Attitude toward linguistic simplification; Attitude toward language awareness in lesson planning; Self-efficacy to teach culturally diverse PE classes."
## [1422] "Factors: Enjoyment; Heightened; Helplessness; Role reversal."
## [1423] "Factors: Pastimes/Hobbies; Foods/Drinks; Social activities; Sensory experience."
## [1424] "Factors: Physical strength; Emotional energy; Cognitive liveliness."
## [1425] "Two-Factor Model: Collective efficacy to stop physical aggression; Collective efficacy to stop non-physical aggression. Three-Factor Model: Collective efficacy to stop physical aggression; Collective efficacy to stop relational aggression; Collective efficacy to stop verbal aggression."
## [1426] "Factors: Internal feelings; Competing demands; Situational/interpersonal."
## [1427] "This measure consists of the three factor analytically-derived subscales: Acknowledgement, Assistance, and Individual attention."
## [1428] "This measure consists of seven subscales: Family-Structure/Resources, Social Support, Child Problems, Sibling Problems, Family Problems, Stress Reactions, and Family Beliefs."
## [1429] "Skill dimensions: optimism; emotion control; action orientation; self-reflection; trust; empathy; assertiveness"
## [1430] "Subscales: Family Structure/Resources; Social Support; Child Problems; Sibling Problems; Family Problems; Stress Reactions; Family Beliefs"
## [1431] "Self-Awareness of Strengths/Weaknesses; Self-Awareness of Emotion; Self-Management of Emotion; Self-Management of Goals; Self-Management of Schoolwork; Social Awareness; Relationship Skills; Responsible Decision-Making"
## [1432] "Factors: Social influence; Ordering restrictions; and Personal views about nutrition."
## [1433] "Factors: Interactivity; Relative Advantage; Compatibility; Cost-Effectiveness; Trust; Top Management Support; Entrepreneurial Orientation; Institutional Pressure; Social Media Usage; Organization Impact."
## [1434] "The scale has two orthogonal subscales: Anglo (AOS; 13 items) and Mexican Orientation (MOS; 17 items)."
## [1435] "Subtests: The Performance Test consists of ten subtests: Cognitive Verbal/Preverval; Expressive language; Receptive language; Fine motor skills; Gross motor skills; Visual-motor skills; Affective expression; Social reciprocity; Characteristic motor behaviors; Characteristic verbal behaviors. The Caregiver Report contains three subtests: Problem behavior; Personal self-care; Adaptive behavior."
## [1436] "Factors: Low; Guilt; Emotional; Wakefulness."
## [1437] "Factors: Just Met Scenarios; Familiar Scenarios."
## [1438] "Factors: Motivation or purpose for listening; Lack of focus or detachment; Understanding and perception."
## [1439] "Subscales: Respect and Safety; Information and Participation"
## [1440] "Factors: Virtue–admiration; Dominance–fear; Competence–respect."
## [1441] "Factors: Anxious anticipation; Difficult transition; Interpersonal discomfort; and School avoidance."
## [1442] "Dimensions: Physical Space; Variety of Stimulation; Fine-Motor Toys; Gross-Motor Toys."
## [1443] "Subscales: Activity opportunities; Social interaction; Developing as a person; Organization and information."
## [1444] "Factors: Other—disparaging; Related; Unrelated; Offensive; and Self-disparaging."
## [1445] "Factors: Perceived harm; Perceived Coping."
## [1446] "Subscales: Work negatively influencing home life/WHI; Home negatively influencing work/HWI; Work positively influencing home life/WHI; Home positively influencing work/HWI."
## [1447] "Self-regulatory efficacy; Mastery experiences; Vicarious experiences; Social persuasion; and Physiological/Emotional states."
## [1448] "Dimensions: Mobility; Self-Care; Usual Activities; Pain/Discomfort; Anxiety/Depression."
## [1449] "Self & team development; Staff & care delivery; Technology & care initiatives; Financial & service management; Leadership & clinical practice; Patient safety & risk management; and Standards of care."
## [1450] "Awareness of emotion; Regulation of own emotions; Regulation of others' emotions; and Use of emotion."
## [1451] "Subscales: Worried; Sad; Pain; Tired; Annoyed; Schoolwork/homework; Sleep; Daily routine; Able to join in activities"
## [1452] "Interpersonal aspects; Organizational/Service aspects; and Negatively phrased/Reverse-scored items."
## [1453] "Family well-being; Responsibilities and social life; Financial well-being; and Jobs and careers."
## [1454] "Comparative Self-Criticism (CSC); Internalized Self-Criticism (ISC); and Favourable Comparison with Others (FSC)."
## [1455] "Factors: Satisfaction with Appearing Pregnant; Weight Gain Concerns; Physical Burdens of Pregnancy."
## [1456] "Chance or fate; Criticality; Significant others; Professional help; and Gender."
## [1457] "Subscales: Struggle; Stigma."
## [1458] "Factors: Self-directed; Values-driven"
## [1459] "Subscales: Authenticity; Acquiescence; Clarity/Projectuality."
## [1460] "Subscales: Low; Dull; Guilt; Emotional; Wakefulness; Nervous."
## [1461] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation; Integrated regulation; Identified regulation; Introjected regulation; External regulation; Amotivation. Factors: Autonomous; Controlled motivation; Amotivation."
## [1462] "Dimensions: Spatial reasoning; mathematical reasoning"
## [1463] "Subscales: Callousness; Unemotional; Uncaring."
## [1464] "Factor structure: Single-factor."
## [1465] "Subscales in the Afrikaans version: Autonomy; Relatedness; Competence. The Setswana version showed a unidimensional solution (i.e., Basic psychological needs)."
## [1466] "Constructs: Physical servicescape; Social servicescape; Company identification; Place attachment; Word-of-mouth behavior"
## [1467] "Subscales: Motivation to help; Motivation to live; Putting life in perspective; Legacy; Connection to others."
## [1468] "Item categories: Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Exploratory excitability; Extravagance; Disorderliness; Sensation seeking; Impulsivity; Theft; Alienation; Rebelliousness"
## [1469] "Factor 1: Vulnerable Narcissism (NSC-VN) and Factor 2: Grandiose Narcissism (NSC-GN)."
## [1470] "Factors: Behavioral; Cognitive; Emotional; Transcendental."
## [1471] "Subscales (three of 13 total): Continuity; Curiosity; Impact."
## [1472] "Subscales: Physical Appearance; Physical Competence."
## [1473] "Subscales: Positive mindset; Joy; Life satisfaction; Confidence; Self-esteem; Social interest."
## [1474] "Domains: Symptoms; Emotional; Functional."
## [1475] "This measure consists of eight factor analytically-derived subscales (Directing, Helpful, Understanding, Compliant, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Confrontational, and Imposing) and two underlying dimensions (Agency and Communion)."
## [1476] "This measure consists of two factor analytically-derived subscales: Expectation of pro-environmental behavior and Expectation of anti-environmental behavior."
## [1477] "This measure consists of two factor analytically-derived subscales: Callousness and Uncaring."
## [1478] "Subscales: Problems in feeling accepted; Readiness for self-disclosure; Need for care"
## [1479] "Factors: Negative Perceived Value; Discomfort with Emotions; In-group Stigma; Lack of Knowledge; Lack of Access; Cultural Barriers."
## [1480] "First-order Factors: Mimetic Pressure; Coercive Pressure; Normative Pressure; Top Management Beliefs; E-Health Championing; E-Health Usage. second-order factor: Institutional Forces."
## [1481] "Domains: Self-related emotional impact; Patient-related emotional impact; Personal/Social Impact"
## [1482] "Factors: Promotion and Prevention."
## [1483] "Factors: Family communication and problem solving; Utilizing social and economic resources; Maintaining a positive outlook; Family connectedness; Family spirituality; and Ability to make meaning of adversity."
## [1484] "Model constructs: Industrial ethical climate; Organizational ethical climate; Customer orientation; Adaptive selling; Moral equity; Outcome salesperson performance"
## [1485] "Factor: Global scale of resource management; Help seeking; Learning environment; Time management; Effort; Motivation."
## [1486] "Subscales: Object control skills; Locomotor skills"
## [1487] "Subscales: Restriction; Monitoring (Supervision)."
## [1488] "Factors: Competence; Good will; Trust."
## [1489] "This measure consists of two factor analytically-derived subscales: Knowledge of cognition and Regulation of cognition."
## [1490] "Factors: Personal Strengths; Impulsivity; Childhood/adolescence abuse; Stressful life events; Depression; Family alcohol; Short term problems; Mental health; Suicide environment; Suicide irrigation."
## [1491] "Subscales: Formality; Integrability; Complexity; Modality."
## [1492] "Factors: Academic; Social; Emotional; Physical."
## [1493] "Factors: Stress; Assertiveness; Difficulties to conciliate the care of grandchildren with personal time; Emotional self-regulation."
## [1494] "Factors: Loss of control; Emotional deregulation."
## [1495] "Factors: Affective empathy; Cognitive empathy."
## [1496] "Subscales: Physical Violence; Sexual Violence; Atypical Violence."
## [1497] "Factors: Direct relational aggression; Indirect relational aggression; Proactive relational aggression; and Reactive relational aggression."
## [1498] "Subscales: Time demands; Safety; Passengers."
## [1499] "Factors: Interpersonal grandiose narcissism; intrapersonal grandiose narcissism; interpersonal vulnerable narcissism; intrapersonal vulnerable narcissism."
## [1500] "Subscales: SYMP-6 (non-visual); FUNC-4 (visual problems)."
## [1501] "Subscales: Economic Exploitation; Economic Restriction"
## [1502] "Factors: Self-image; Compassion."
## [1503] "Factors: Desire; Arousal; Lubrication; Orgasm; Satisfaction; and Pain."
## [1504] "S-CALVS subtests: core academic language skills; academic vocabulary knowledge."
## [1505] "This measure consists of five subscales: Financial impact, Social relationships, Personal strain, Problems in coping, and Concern for siblings."
## [1506] "Factors: Impact of social work on one’s faith; Impact of faith on one’s social work practice; Impact of faith on one’s social work identity; Conflict between one’s faith and social work."
## [1507] "Factors: Knowledge of cognition; Regulation of cognition."
## [1508] "Factors: Difficulty deleting; Accumulating."
## [1509] "Factors: Technical advantage; Attitude of game providers; Perceived risk; Source credibility; Critical mass; Self-efficacy; Positive cheating attitude; Personal engagement; and Intention to stop cheating behavior."
## [1510] "Factors: Past negative; Present fatalistic; Past positive; Future; Present hedonistic."
## [1511] "Factors: Positive engagement; Acceptance."
## [1512] "Constructs: Sharing of risk information; Attitudes towards sharing information; Self-efficacy; Injunctive norms; Sociability; Information seeking; Information need; Descriptive norms; Anxiety; Risk perception; Trust"
## [1513] "Factor: Self-Efficacy for Teaching Students With ASD."
## [1514] "Factors: Speeding Violations; Errors; Non-Speeding Violations."
## [1515] "Domains/Subdomains: Learning environments (Safety; Organization of Learning Environment; Materials; Visual schedules; Transitions); Positive learning climate (Staff-student interaction; Staff behaviors; Promoting diversity); Assessment and IEP development (Assessing student progress; Assessment process; IEP goals; Transition planning); Curriculum and instruction (Classroom instruction); Communication (Communication rich environment; Individualized communication instruction; Responsiveness to student communication; Communication systems); Social competence (Arranging opportunities; Teaching and modeling; Peer social networks); Personal independence and competence (Personal independence; Self-management); Functional behavior [interfering and adaptive] (Proactive strategies; Behavioral assessment; Behavior management; Data collection); Family involvement (Teaming; Communication; Parent teacher meetings); Teaming (Team training; Team membership; Team meetings; Implementation)."
## [1516] "Fine motor; Gross motor; Language; Cognitive; Personal-social-emotional"
## [1517] "Factors: Time Management/Organization; Extracurricular/Social; Hygiene; Household; Family Communication"
## [1518] "Factors: Antisocial; Drugs."
## [1519] "Factors: Everyday-life business deviance; Materialism; Trust in institutional justice; Ethical standards."
## [1520] "Factors: Eight first-order factors: Internalizing/Catastrophizing [IC]; Positive Self-Statements [PSS]; Information Seeking [IS]; Seeking Social Support [SSS]; Cognitive Distraction [CD]; Externalizing [EXT]; Behavioural Distraction [BD]; and Problem Solving [PS]. Second higher-order scales: Approach [APP]; Emotion-Focused Avoidance [EFA]; Distraction [DIS])."
## [1521] "Subscale: Consulting behavior."
## [1522] "Self-care Maintenance; Self-care Management; Self-care Confidence."
## [1523] "Maintenance; Management (Consultative and Autonomous); and Confidence."
## [1524] "Factors: Social Advising; Decisiveness; Emotional Regulation; Insight; Pro-Social Behaviors; Tolerance for Divergent Values."
## [1525] "Factors: Salience; Conflict, Tolerance and Mood Modification."
## [1526] "Factors: General Bonding (F1A); Frustration (F1B); Anxiety (F2); Feeling trapped (F3A); and Aggression/Rejection dimensions (F3B) loaded onto three subscales 1, 2, and 3."
## [1527] "Subscales: Community Mobility; Emotional; and Resources and Safety."
## [1528] "Factors: Wärme/Nähe (Warmth/Closeness); Konflikt (Conflict); Status/Macht (Status/Power); Elterliche Parteilichkeit (Rivalry)"
## [1529] "Subscales: SYMP-6 (characterizes nonvisual ocular symptoms); FUNC-4, (characterizes visual symptoms)."
## [1530] "Subscales: kog = kognitive Strategien; Org = Organisieren; Ela = Elaborieren; KrP = kritisches Prüfen; Wie = Wiederholen; metakog = metakognitive Strategien; ZP = Planen; Kon = Kontrollieren; Reg = Regulieren; erm = Strategien des Managements externer Ressourcen; LmS = Lernen mit Studienkolleg innen; Lit = Literaturrecherche; LU = Lernumgebung; irm = Strategien des Managements interner Ressourcen; Ans = Anstrengung; Auf = Aufmerksamkeit; Zei = Zeitmanagement."
## [1531] "Dimensions: Warmth/Closeness; Conflict."
## [1532] "Single-factor structure: Emotional Intelligence"
## [1533] "Factors: Physical Appearance; Physical Health; Intelligence; Academic Achievement; Leisure Activities; Personality; Family Relationship; Close Relationship; Friendship."
## [1534] "Factors: Fear of Accountability; Classroom Disruption; Hopelessness; and Teacher Stress."
## [1535] "Part B domains: Communication; Labor resources; Material resources"
## [1536] "Factors: Social; Environmental; Economical; and Physical according."
## [1537] "Factors: Learning with fellow students (Lernen mit Studienkollegen); Using literature for help (Literatur zur Hilfe nehmen); Design of the study environment (Gestaltung der Studienumgebung). Scales: Organization (Organisation); Relationships (Zusammenhänge); Critical review (Kritisches Prüfen); To repeat (Wiederholen); Metacognitive strategies (Metakognitive Strategien); Effort (Anstrengung); Attention (Aufmerksamkeit); Time management (Zeitmanagement); Learning environment (Lernumgebung); Lemen with (Lernen mit); Fellow students (Studienkollegen); Literature (Literatur)."
## [1538] "Subscales: Factor 1; Factor 2."
## [1539] "Subscales: Internal; External; Amotivation."
## [1540] "Subscales: Physical aggression; Exclusion; Insults/mockery."
## [1541] "Unidimensional."
## [1542] "Subscales: Competence & Autonomy; Perceived Need for Cooperation; Perception of Actual Cooperation; Understanding Others' Value."
## [1543] "Subscales: Self-belief; Learning focus; Value of schooling; Persistence; Planning and monitoring; Study management (Boosters); Anxiety; Low control; Failure avoidance; Self-sabotage (Guzzlers)."
## [1544] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness. Subscales: Anxiety; Anger; Depression; Self-consciousness; Immoderation; Vulnerability; Friendliness; Gregariousness; Assertiveness; Activity Level; Excitement-seeking; Cheerfulness; Imagination; Artistic Interest; Emotionality; Adventurousness; Intellect; Liberalism; Trust; Morality; Altruism; Cooperation; Modesty; Sympathy; Self-efficacy; Orderliness; Dutifulness; Achievement-striving; Self-discipline; Cautiousness."
## [1545] "Subscales: Defeat/Victory; Acceptance"
## [1546] "Factors: Customer involvement; Supplier involvement; Green product innovation; Supplier uncertainty; Demand uncertainty; Technological uncertainty."
## [1547] "Subscales: Traditional; Intellectual; Community."
## [1548] "Subscales: Pain Impact; Catastrophizing; Outcome-Efficacy."
## [1549] "Subscales: Social Quality of Life (SOCQOL); Vocational Quality of Life (VOCQOL)."
## [1550] "Subscales: Symptom; Function."
## [1551] "Domains: Bodily functions; Mental functions and perception; Spiritual/existential; Quality of life; Social and societal participation; and Daily functioning."
## [1552] "Subscales: Comfort; Achievement."
## [1553] "Dimensions: Psychological demands; physical demands; Organizational demands; Work overcommitment; Interferences between work and family; nonwork domains to work (Overall job requirements); job control; autonomy; Social support from coworkers; social support from supervisors; Social support by relatives (Overall job resources)."
## [1554] "Subscales: Verbal aggression; Physical aggression against objects; Physical aggression against self; Physical aggression against other people; Sexual behavior; Perseverative/repetitive; Wandering/absconding; Inappropriate social behavior; Reduced initiation."
## [1555] "Subscales: Acts of Service; Physical Touch; Words of Affirmation; Quality Time; Gifts."
## [1556] "Subscales: Intrusion; Avoidance; Changes in Cognition and Mood; Arousal and Hyperreactivity."
## [1557] "Factors: Relatedness; Mastery; Competence; Fun; Narratives."
## [1558] "Factors: Reflective skepticism; Self-examination; Empathetic reflection; Critical open-mindedness."
## [1559] "Factors: Compulsory living; Absence of romantic behavior toward spouse; and Emotional vacuum."
## [1560] "Scales: Behaviour; Materialism; Environment; Life Satisfaction."
## [1561] "Subscales: psychological aggression; minor physical violence/corporal punishment; severe physical violence"
## [1562] "Subscales: Limitation; Emotional; Physical."
## [1563] "Subscales: Severity; Frequency."
## [1564] "Subscales: Contamination; Responsibility for harm or mistakes; Unacceptable thoughts; Incompleteness."
## [1565] "Subscales: Virtual tolerance; Virtual communication; Virtual problem; Virtual information."
## [1566] "Subscales: Innate predilection; Abstinence; Family attitudes; Peer pressure."
## [1567] "Subscales: Psychologic; Health system and information; Physical and daily living; Patient care and support; Sexuality."
## [1568] "Domains of Practice: Direct comprehensive care; Support of systems; Education; Research; Publication and Professional Leadership"
## [1569] "Subscales: Rape victims want to be raped; Rape allegations are often false; Rape must involve violence; Victims are responsible for being raped; The motivation to rape is understandable."
## [1570] "Factor: Global trait Emotional intelligence. Indicators: Well-Being; Self-Control; Emotionality; Sociability"
## [1571] "Factors: Positive religious coping; Negative religious coping"
## [1572] "Factors: The size of the discrepancies; The resulting distress; The presence to unwanted traits."
## [1573] "Subscales: Efficiency and effectiveness of nutrition care; Training and support; Integration into dietetic work systems; Familiarity with apps."
## [1574] "Factors: Respect for basic rights; Support of self-determination; Sense of social responsibility; Commitment to individual freedom."
## [1575] "Subscales: Perceived personal control in health care; Anticipated personal control regarding future health care; Perceived support from the social network."
## [1576] "Subscales: Arrangement of professional health care; Help from family members/friends/neighbors; When needing (more) complex care in the future; Communication with medical workers; Self-care at home."
## [1577] "Factors: Nonacceptance; Goals; Impulses; Awareness; Strategies; Clarity."
## [1578] "Subscales: Secure; Fearful; Dismissing; Preoccupied"
## [1579] "Levels: Word; Category procedure; Phrasal procedure; Interphrasal procedure (word order rules); Clause and subclause"
## [1580] "Subscales: Indifference; Over-control; Abuse."
## [1581] "Subscales: Fear; Anxiety."
## [1582] "Factors: Mission analysis; Strategy formulation; Situation monitoring; Backup behaviors; Coordination; Conflict management; Motivating others; Affect management."
## [1583] "Factors: Ability to Relax; Ability to Image to Music; Responsiveness to Music and Guiding; Comfort with Self-Disclosure; Meaningfulness of the Experience."
## [1584] "Subscales: Poor awareness; Expressive reluctance."
## [1585] "Components: Assessment Type; Timing of Feedback; Personalization; Form; Type; Peer Feedback; Resubmission Opportunities"
## [1586] "Factors: Nurse participation in hospital matters; Environment allows for quality nursing practice by providing basic fundamentals required; Management capabilities; Support from other nurses and adequacy of resources; Nurse-doctor relationship."
## [1587] "Scales: Mania Symptom Index; Depression Symptom Index; General Symptom Index."
## [1588] "Subscales: Hyperthymic; Depressive; Cyclothymic; Irritable; Anxious"
## [1589] "Factors: Irreversibility; Loss of control; Narcissistic wounds; Emotional flooding; Freezing; Estrangement; Confusion; Social distancing; and Emptiness."
## [1590] "Factors: Positive aspects of mania; Negative aspects of mania."
## [1591] "Factors: Perspective taking; Online simulation; Emotional contagion; Proximal responsivity; and Peripheral responsivity."
## [1592] "New subscales: Quality of transitions; Presence of interdisciplinary teams; Opportunities to engage children in art, play, literature, and exploration; Pedagogical quality"
## [1593] "Factors: Past imagery; Physiological reactions; Positive emotions; Negative emotions; Collective nostalgia."
## [1594] "Subscales tested: Individual Problems and Strengths (IPS); Relationship with Partner (RWP); Family/Household (FH); Child Problem and Strengths (CPS)."
## [1595] "Subdomains: recovery; sequelae; insight; hidden injury"
## [1596] "Factors: Communication; Accommodation; Isolation."
## [1597] "Factors: Showing interpersonal sensitivity; Communicating specific information about the child; Treating people respectfully."
## [1598] "Factors: Encouraging interprofessional interaction; Respect for each professional."
## [1599] "Instruments types: Parent report; Closed-set Words; Closed-set Sentences; Open-set Words; Open-set Sentences."
## [1600] "Subscales: Frequency; Importance."
## [1601] "Factors: Cancer fatalism; Health fatalism; Health temporal orientation and internal control; External control; Physical space."
## [1602] "Factors: Altruistic behavior; Attitude; Persuasive communication; Self‐efficacy belief."
## [1603] "Factors: Perceived economic impacts; Perceived social impacts; Perceived environmental impacts; Opportunity; Knowledge & awareness; and Participation in conservation & tourism development."
## [1604] "Factors: Secure environment; Interactive environment; Family environment."
## [1605] "Subscales: Idea Openness; Idea Selection; Idea Application."
## [1606] "Levels: Individual Level (4 scales); Organizational Level (13 scales); System Level (8 scales)"
## [1607] "Factors: Attitude towards rule violations and speeding; Attitude towards the careless driving of others; Attitude towards drinking and driving."
## [1608] "Scales: General; Walking; Cycling barriers."
## [1609] "Subscales: Personal irrational beliefs; Low frustration tolerance; Awfulizing; Depreciation."
## [1610] "Factors: Trustworthiness; Competency; Having someone’s back; Value-life interest similarity; Caring personal relationship; and Socio-cultural similarity."
## [1611] "Factors: Psychological aggression towards the mother; Physical aggression towards the mother; Psychological aggression towards the father; Physical aggression towards the father."
## [1612] "Subscales: Cumulative humiliation; Fear of humiliation."
## [1613] "Factors: Exchange Legitimacy; Influence-Dispositional Legitimacy; Consequential Legitimacy; Procedural Legitimacy; Structural Legitimacy; Comprehensibility; Taken-for-grantedness."
## [1614] "Factors: Proactive Strategies; Protective Strategies; Reactive Strategies."
## [1615] "Factors: Noncompliance; Procedural effort; Substantive effort; Focal effort."
## [1616] "Subscales: Fitbit financier; Status; The Cash Splasher; Anxious trader."
## [1617] "Factors: Physical and mental health; Family life; Social security."
## [1618] "Factors: Positive idealization; Sexual attraction; Positive emotion; Negative emotion; Obsessive thinking; Taking love for granted; and Negative idealization."
## [1619] "Subscales: Structure; Presence; Social Support; and Self-Control."
## [1620] "Factors: Authoritarian Aggression; Authoritarian Submission; Conventionalism."
## [1621] "Factors: Performance Expectancy; Effort Expectancy; Facilitating Conditions; Hedonic Motivation; Social Influence; Intention to Use; Habit."
## [1622] "Factors: Transactional leadership; Transformational leadership."
## [1623] "Factors: Fatigue; Exhaustion; and Recovery."
## [1624] "Factors: Positive meaning; Meaning making through work; Greater good motivations."
## [1625] "Factors: Instrumental; Affective; Defense."
## [1626] "Factors: Sad mood and agitation; Cognitive inefficiency; Lack of energy; Positive mood; and Social withdrawal."
## [1627] "Subscales: Negative post-event processing degree subscale and Negative post-event processing distress subscale"
## [1628] "Factors: Self-perception; role-emotional, role-social, acne symptoms"
## [1629] "Factors: Alleviating Workload (AW); Monitoring (M)"
## [1630] "Factors: Escapism; browsing; socialization; activity; shopping for fashion products; uniqueness; service; and aesthetics."
## [1631] "Dimensionality: The measure is unidimensional. Specifically, it was expected that reliability would be high without indicating redundancy. In this case, the reliability of 0.98 demonstrates unidimensionality, i.e., that the instrument is in fact measuring the impact of the sensory environment on participation of young children in the community."
## [1632] "Part 1 factors: goal frustration; external demands; external prohibitions. Part 2 factors: endurance; negative emotions; immediate acceptance; negotiation; obedience; respecting prohibitions; evasiveness; physical pressure. Part 3 factors: rewarding; praising; giving in; discussing; distraction; call for self-regulation; negative pressure."
## [1633] "Factors: Recovery; Brain injury sequelae; Insight; Hidden injury."
## [1634] "Subscales: Nurturant-parent (NP); Strict-father (SF)"
## [1635] "Factors: Animal pride; Solidarity with animals; Human-animal similarity"
## [1636] "Composite Scales/Subscales: Factor: Incremental: Self-kindness; common humanity; mindfulness; Factor: Decremental: Self-judgment; isolation; over-identification."
## [1637] "Factors: Mood and coping; Esteem and worth; Socialization; Cognition; and Self-actualization."
## [1638] "Fight-flight system; Behavioral activation system; Behavioral inhibition system."
## [1639] "Factors: Unsolvability; Unbearability; Unlovability."
## [1640] "Factors: Managing the Pain; Enduring the Pain."
## [1641] "Subscales: Inattentive (INA); Hyperactive/Impulsive (H/I)."
## [1642] "Factor structure: household disruption; abuse; neglect."
## [1643] "Subscales: Surfeit of the pain; Belief in the ability to cope with the pain; Containing the pain."
## [1644] "Subscales: Irreversibility; Loss of control; Narcissistic wounds; Emotional flooding; Freezing; Self-estrangement; Confusion; Emptiness; Social distancing."
## [1645] "Factors: Self-deception; Impression management."
## [1646] "Factors: Affiliative humor; Aggressive humor; Self-enhancing humor; and Self-defeating humor."
## [1647] "Factors: Reactivity; Holding a Grudge; Negative thoughts about situations; Easily Frustrated/Angered; Hostility towards one's partner"
## [1648] "Subscales: Anger response; Anger impairment."
## [1649] "Sub-tasks: Dictating into a tape-recorder a brief account of two journeys (to here; from here); writing down names of as many pictures as one can (from two sets of pictures); solving sets of arithmetic problems."
## [1650] "Subscales: Anger response; Anger impairment."
## [1651] "Subscales: Fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS); Behavioral inhibition system (BIS); Behavioral approach system (BAS)."
## [1652] "Subscales: Frequency of exposure; Age at exposure; Nature of relationship to the person exhibiting suicidal behavior; degree of Emotional reaction to exposure. Factors: Exposure to suicidal communication; Direct exposure to suicide attempts and deaths; Indirect exposure to suicide attempts and deaths."
## [1653] "Subscales: Factors Increasing Anxiety; Compulsion/Hypochondria; Factors Decreasing Anxiety; Doctor-Patient Interaction; Dysfunctional Internet Use."
## [1654] "Factors: Sluggish; Daydreaming."
## [1655] "Factors: Fortitude; Trust in Nurses; Cancer Patient Optimism; Authentic Self-Representation."
## [1656] "Factors: Creative anxiety; Noncreativity anxiety control."
## [1657] "Factors: Direct aggression perpetration; Direct aggression victimization; Control perpetration; Control victimization."
## [1658] "Factors: Non-interference and action; Acceptance and Life functioning."
## [1659] "Factors: Outlook; Resilience; Social Intuition; Self-Awareness; Sensitivity to Context; Attention."
## [1660] "Factors: Perceived competence; Autonomy support; Intrinsic motivation; Relatedness; Autonomy."
## [1661] "Dimensions: Motivation and Sense of Life; Catastrophizing of the Present and the Future."
## [1662] "Scales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [1663] "Subscales: Perceived ability; Role clarity; Customer satisfaction; Continuance intention; Perceived benefit."
## [1664] "Factors: Suppression; Adjusting/Reappraisal; Acceptance."
## [1665] "Independent Factor: General Sense of Humor. Correlated Specific Factors: Enjoyment of Humor; Laughter; Verbal Humor; Finding Humor in Everyday Life; Laughing at Yourself; Humor under Stress."
## [1666] "Subscales: Dyadic sexual behaviour with a casual partner; Dyadic sexual behaviour with a steady partner; Solitary sexual behaviour and use of erotic material; Unconventional sexual behaviour; Online sexual behaviours."
## [1667] "Factors: Personal Growth; Emptiness and Meaninglessness; Continuing Bonds; Sense of Peace."
## [1668] "Factors: Sexual pressure; Sexual coercion; Online grooming by an adult; Unwanted exposure to sexual content; Violation of privacy; Online harassment; Happy slapping; Pressure to obtain personal information."
## [1669] "Factors: Reckless contact with strangers; Indirect risk."
## [1670] "Factors: Emotional abuse (Emocionálne týranie); Physical abuse (Fyzické týranie); Sexual abuse (Sexuálne zneužívanie); Emotional neglect (Emocionálne zanedbávanie); Physical neglect (Fyzické zanedbávanie)."
## [1671] "Dimensions: attentional control; inhibitory control; metacognition; organization; planning; cognitive flexibility"
## [1672] "Factors: Financial preparedness; Social obligation; Social alienation."
## [1673] "Factors: Test/exam; Writing; Public speaking; Group work."
## [1674] "Factors: Cognitive problems; Distress; Sleep problems."
## [1675] "Factors: Free will; Determinism; Dualism."
## [1676] "Factors: Knowledge of content; Pedagogical knowledge; Pedagogical knowledge of content; Technological knowledge; Pedagogical technological knowledge; Technological knowledge of content; Pedagogical technological knowledge of content."
## [1677] "Factors: Positive work-family interface; Positive family-work interface"
## [1678] "Factors: realistic; investigative; artistic; social; entrepreneur; conventional"
## [1679] "Dimensions: Working excessively; Working compulsively."
## [1680] "Factors: Supportive behavior; Resistance."
## [1681] "Sub-Factors: Setting Goals; Academic Time Management; Resource Organization"
## [1682] "Factors: Conversation skills; Ability to say 'no'; Ability to accept praise; Public speaking; Positive moods; Lack of negative moods; Ability to disagree; Standing up for one's rights"
## [1683] "Factors: Locomotive skills; Object control/ball skills"
## [1684] "Factors: Continuous Learning; Inquiry and Dialogue; Collaboration and Team Learning; Systems to Capture Learning; Empower People; Provide Strategic Leadership for Learning; Connect the Organization."
## [1685] "Ethical Commitment; Cooperation with Other Professionals; Project Design and Development; Diversity Disposition; Professional Development Disposition"
## [1686] "Dimensions: “Beliefs/knowledge about/of schizophrenia”; “Attitudes towards schizophrenia”."
## [1687] "The dimensionality of the measure showed two distinct elements (verbal and non-verbal pragmatic language) of a unidimensional construct."
## [1688] "Factors: Self-Emotion Appraisal; Other’s Emotion Appraisal; Use of Emotion; Regulation of Emotion."
## [1689] "Factors: Harmonious passion; Obsessive passion."
## [1690] "Factors: Sense of control or autonomy; Sense of meaning and purpose; Personal expressiveness; Feeling of belonging; Contribution and social competence; Personal growth and self-acceptance."
## [1691] "Factors: A population perspective – value for money, no special cases; Life is precious – valuing life-extension and patient choice; Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost - the quality of life and death."
## [1692] "Subscales: Medication adherence; Low-salt diet adherence; Physical activity; Nonsmoking; Weight management; Alcohol abstinence."
## [1693] "Subscales: Medication Adherence; Healthy Eating; Physical Activity; Tobacco Exposure; Weight Management; Alcohol Intake"
## [1694] "Factors: Cognitive Imbalance; Affective Imbalance; Imbalance toward Others; Automatic Imbalance; Imbalance toward Self; External Imbalance."
## [1695] "Factors: Worrying about relationships; Frustration about unavailability; Turning away from others; Discomfort with closeness."
## [1696] "Factors: Survival; Meaning; Power; Autonomy; Connection."
## [1697] "Factors: Community link; Reliability; Commitment; Congruence; Benevolence; Transparency; Broad impact."
## [1698] "Factors: Brooding; Reflection."
## [1699] "Subscales: Emotional symptoms; Physical symptoms."
## [1700] "Factors: Capacity; Work procedures; Participation strategies"
## [1701] "Dimensions: Overall quality; Dialogue with students; Respect for students; Affect; Teaching performance quality; Learning potential; Student discipline"
## [1702] "Dimensions: Educational; Quality Presentation; Intrinsic Concepts are Covered"
## [1703] "Factors: Disrespect towards people; Respect toward people."
## [1704] "Factors: Socio-emotional Characteristics; Cognitive Characteristics."
## [1705] "Factors: Conspiracy theory ideation; Skepticism."
## [1706] "Factors: Preoccupation; Failure to adapt"
## [1707] "Subscales: Student social emotional learning; Engaging families; Supporting students experiencing mental health difficulties; Positive school community."
## [1708] "Factor structure: Unidimensional"
## [1709] "Subscales: Static sitting balance; Dynamic sitting balance; Co-ordination."
## [1710] "Indicators: Therapist use of praise; Therapist demonstration of warmth; Client comfort level; Therapist-client collaboration; Client interest and enthusiasm; Openness to the therapy process; Client use of strengths-based language; Provider listening behaviors; Provider overall comfort; Provider confidence."
## [1711] "Domains: (1) activities of daily living (ADL) and personal care; (2) positioning, transferring and mobility; (3) comfort and emotions; (4) communication and social interaction; (5) health; (6) overall quality of life."
## [1712] "Subscales: Range of motion (ROM); Accuracy; Dexterity; Fluency."
## [1713] "Factors: Lighthearted; whimsical; other-directed; intellectual"
## [1714] "Factors: Temperament (Novelty Seeking; Harm Avoidance; Reward Dependence; Persistence); Character (Persistence; Self-directedness; Cooperativeness; Self-transcendence)."
## [1715] "Factors: Past Life Satisfaction; Present Life Satisfaction; Future Life Satisfaction."
## [1716] "Factors: Inattention; Hyperactivity/Impulsivity."
## [1717] "Factors: Emotional demands of work; Superficial action; Deep action."
## [1718] "Factors: Courage (Coragem); Temperance (Temperança); Justice (Justiça); Prudence (Prudência); Humanity (Humanidade)."
## [1719] "Factors: Early Academic Skills (Creative Thinking; Critical Thinking; Numeracy; Early Literacy; Comprehension); Early Academic Enablers (Approaches to Learning; Social-Emotional Competence; Fine Motor Skills; Gross Motor Skills; Communication)."
## [1720] "Subscales: Perceived Workplace Power; Perceived Workplace Status."
## [1721] "Father Factors: Ego promoting values and behaviors; Task promoting behaviors; Task promoting values. Mother Factors: Ego promoting values and behaviors; Task promoting values and behaviors."
## [1722] "Factors: Benefits in Usefulness (BIU, 6 items); Concern Scenarios (CS, 5 items); Benefits in Situations (BIS, 3 items); System Concerns (SC, 4 items)."
## [1723] "Factors: Core disgust; Animal-reminder disgust; Physical and mental contamination disgust."
## [1724] "Factors: Orientation for problem-solving related to children and child-rearing; Feelings of avoidance of children and child-rearing; Inclination toward child-rearing at home; Acceptance of the tax burden."
## [1725] "Factors: Spiritual Transcendence (ST); Religious Sentiments (RS). Subfactors: Religious Involvement (RI); Religious Crisis (RC); Prayer Fulfillment (PF); Universality (UN); Connectedness (CN)."
## [1726] "Latent factors: Quality of Day; Affective Well-Being"
## [1727] "Factors: 1. Relationships inside the pediatric team; 2. Health professionals’ relationship with themselves; 3. Health professionals’ relationship with children; 4. Health professionals’ relationship with families; 5. Families’ relationship with child’s condition and treatment; 6. Children’s relationship with their own disease and treatment; 7. DA’s intervention “durability” on children; 8. DA’s impact on the staff’s cultural development."
## [1728] "Subscales: Retribution in this life; Afterlife retribution; Retribution in descendant; Create destiny; Offset of good and evil; Religious redemption; Accept destiny."
## [1729] "Factors: Emotional Deprivation; Abandonment; Mistrust; Social Isolation; Defectiveness; Failure; Dependence; Vulnerability; Enmeshment, Subjugation; Self-Sacrifice; Emotional Inhibition; Unrelenting Standards; Entitlement; Insufficient Self-Control."
## [1730] "Factors: Training for employment/career (Formación para el empleo/Carrera); Personal and social development (Desarrollo personal y social); Student mobility (Movilidad estudiantil); Political and citizenship involvement (Implicación política y ciudadanía); Social pressure (Presión social); Quality of education (Calidad de formación); Social interaction (Interacción social)."
## [1731] "Factors: Change Unnecessary; Conflicting Goals and Aspirations; Interpersonal Relations; Lacking Knowledge; Tokenism."
## [1732] "Subscales: Patient Activation; Non-Patient Activation"
## [1733] "Factors: Flexibility of Truth; Acceptance of Differences."
## [1734] "The short-form scales are unidimensional (as opposed to the 4-factor original measure)."
## [1735] "Factors: Communication; Respect; Excellence; Altruism and caring."
## [1736] "Subscales: Confidence in Learning; Confidence in Creativity; Confidence in Competence."
## [1737] "Subscales: Perception of trust and receptivity; Patient-centered information giving; Rapport building; Facilitation of patient involvement."
## [1738] "Subscales: Warmth; Rejection; Structure; Chaos; Autonomy support; Coercion."
## [1739] "Subscales: Coping asset of problem (Afrontamiento activo del problema); Consumption of alcohol or drugs (Consumo de alcohol o drogas); Focus on emotions and Unburden (Centrarse en las emociones y desahogarse); Search of social support (Búsqueda de apoyo social); Humor (Humor); Religion (Religión); Negation (Negación); Restrain the coping (Refrenar el afrontamiento); Acceptance and increase personal (Aceptación y crecimiento personal)."
## [1740] "Factors: Psychological State; Having family; Achievement Orientation."
## [1741] "Subscales: Frequency; Importance."
## [1742] "Factors: Reading; Concentration and Memory; Time Management; Emotional Management; Other learning practices."
## [1743] "Dimensions: Physical Space; Variety of Stimulation; Fine-Motor Toys; Gross-Motor Toys."
## [1744] "Parenting dimensions: warmth; rejection; structure; chaos; autonomy support; coercion"
## [1745] "Parenting dimensions: warmth; rejection; structure; chaos; autonomy support; coercion"
## [1746] "Factors: Self-concept; Self-efficacy; Interest."
## [1747] "Sub-measures: Picture Naming; Expressive Verbs."
## [1748] "Factors: Dyadic Reciprocity; Maternal Unresponsiveness to Infant’s Cues; Dyadic Conflict; Maternal Intrusiveness."
## [1749] "Factors: Peer comparison; Parents, School; Family."
## [1750] "Factors: Symptoms-addiction (síntomas-adicción); Social-use (uso-social); Traits-freaky (rasgos-frikis); Nomophobia (nomofobia)."
## [1751] "Factors: Word reading and knowledge of letter components (language development); Letter ordering/sorting (psychomotor development)"
## [1752] "Factors: Autonomy Satisfaction; Autonomy Frustration; Relatedness Satisfaction; Relatedness Frustration; Competence Satisfaction; Competence Frustration."
## [1753] "Factors: General positive reactivity; General negative reactivity. Subscales: Negative-activation; Negative-intensity; Negative-duration; Positive-activation; Positive-intensity; Positive-duration."
## [1754] "Factors: Rumination; Reappraisal; Acceptance; Problem-solving; Expressive suppression; Experience suppression; Avoidance; Activity/Social support."
## [1755] "Factors: Fear of Injury; Fear of Illness."
## [1756] "Factors: General Distress; Anxious Arousal; Anhedonic Depression."
## [1757] "Subscales; general distress; anhedonic depression; anxious arousal"
## [1758] "Factors: Negative affect; Positive affect; Somatic affect."
## [1759] "Factors: Academic functioning; Behavior functioning; Social functioning."
## [1760] "Factors: Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition. Scales: Initiate; Working Memory; Plan/Organize; Organization of Materials; Task-Monitor; Inhibit; Self-Monitor; Shift; Emotional Control."
## [1761] "Construct validity: There was evidence for strong concurrent validity with both self-report and behavioral measures of DI (across several types of distress) and evidence for elevations in clinical relative to healthy samples (McHugh&Otto, 2011), providing support for the construct validity of the 10 items. Criterion validity: Results provided preliminary support for the items' correlation with behavioral measures across types of distress (McHugh & Otto, 2011)."
## [1762] "Subscales: Courage; Temperance; Prudence; Justice; Humanity."
## [1763] "Subscales: Assimilation; Miseducation; Self-Hatred; Anti-Dominant; Ethnocentricity; Multiculturalist Inclusive; Ethnic-Racial Salience."
## [1764] "Factors: Food preparation skills; Resilience and resistance; Healthy snack styles; Social and conscious eating; Examining Food Labels; Daily food planning; Healthy budgeting; Healthy food stockpiling."
## [1765] "Factors: Holistic care; Communication modes; Professional behaviours; Consequences."
## [1766] "Subscales: Self-blame; Acceptance; Rumination; Positive refocusing; Refocus on planning; Positive reappraisal; Putting into perspective; Catastrophizing; Blaming others. Factors: Adaptive; Less adaptive."
## [1767] "Factors: Abnegation; Difficulty receiving affection; Fear of singleness."
## [1768] "Dimensions: (I) Actions carried out to give orientations; (II) Difficulties following guidelines; (III) Personal style of the professional when giving guidance; (IV) Guidelines for training."
## [1769] "Dimensions: Students' Capabilities (Critical thinking; Creative thinking; Self-managed learning; Adaptability; Problem solving; Interpersonal skills; Communication skills); Teaching-learning Environment (Active learning; Teaching for understanding; Assessment; Coherence of curriculum; Teacher-students relationship; Feedback to assist learning; Relationship with other students; Cooperative learning."
## [1770] "Factors: Self-efficacy; Hope; Resilience; Optimism."
## [1771] "Factors: Aloof; Pragmatic; Rigid."
## [1772] "Factors: Attitude; Threat; Benefit; Esteem; Cheating; Legitimacy; Reference group; Stress; Susceptibility."
## [1773] "Factors: Present satisfaction; Past satisfaction; Future satisfaction."
## [1774] "Subscales: Static sitting balance; Dynamic sitting balance; Coordination."
## [1775] "Factors: Spiritual; Attachment; Survival; Mastery. Subscales: Ultimate Gains; Supported Strivings; Interpersonal Bonding; Trust Experiences; Fear Reduction; Liberation Experiences; Interpersonal Assurance; Spiritual Inspiration; Spiritual Presence; Spiritual Assurance."
## [1776] "Factors: Attached Mastery; Personalized Mastery; Basic Trust; Attached Survival; Self-generated Survival; Spirituality. Subscales: Ultimate Ends; Supported Mastery; Basic Trust; Openness; Personal Terror Management; Social Terror Management; Positive Future; Spiritual Empowerment; Benign Universe; Spiritual Openness; Mystical Experience; Spiritual Terror-Management; Symbolic Immortality; Spiritual Integrity."
## [1777] "Subscales: Approach; Avoidance."
## [1778] "Factors: Shared treatment information and decision-making; Patient–physician contact; Discussion of the impact of pain and treatment on work, rehabilitation, and daily activities; One contact person for the patient; Treatment outcome; Received pain questionnaire; Waiting list."
## [1779] "Subscales: Heart; Nutrition; Exercise/physical activity; Medication; Work/vocational/social; Stress/psychological factors; General/social concerns; Emergency/safety; Diagnosis and treatment; Risk factors."
## [1780] "Subscales: The heart; Nutrition; Exercise/physical activity; Medication; Work/vocational/social; Stress/psychological factors; General/social concerns; Emergency/safety; Diagnosis and treatment; Risk factors."
## [1781] "Factors: External Driving Environment (EDE); Internal Driving Environment (IDE)"
## [1782] "Factors: Anticipatory Anxiety (AA); School-based performance Anxiety (SA); Generalized Anxiety (GA)."
## [1783] "Factors: Spirituality; Support/empowerment; Liberation/trust; Personal mastery. Subscales: Ultimate gains; Supported strivings; Interpersonal bonding; Trust experiences; Fear reduction; Liberation experiences; Interpersonal assurance; Spiritual inspiration; Spiritual presence; Spiritual assurance; Nonspiritual hope; Spiritual hope; Total hope."
## [1784] "Subscales: Cannabis use; Subjective norms; Self-efficacy towards non-use; Intention to use."
## [1785] "Factors: numeric; symbolic; spatial; ideas"
## [1786] "Subscales: Owner-worry; Dog-anxiety; Dog-joy."
## [1787] "Subscales: Approach; Avoidance."
## [1788] "Scales: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Neuroticism; Openness."
## [1789] "Subscales: Social Comparison; Social Ineptness."
## [1790] "Factors: Instructional strategies; Classroom management; Student engagement."
## [1791] "Dimensions: Business Analytics (BA) capabilities; Information quality; Innovative capability; Firm agility; Technological turbulence; Market turbulence; Firm performance."
## [1792] "Dimensions (Sub-Constructs): (1) identity multiplicity; (2) cultural hybridity, (3) boundary spanning; (4) network expansion."
## [1793] "Factors: Positive reappraisal and personal growth (PRG); Lowering of aspirations and acceptance (LAA); Downward comparison (DCO); Reorientation (REO); Detachment from goal (DET)."
## [1794] "Factors: Cannot Cope Alone; Need to Escape from Others; Consumed in Intolerable Distress."
## [1795] "Subscales: Energy; Neuroticism; Affection; Conscientiousness; Intelligence."
## [1796] "Subscales: Control during movement; Fine motor/Handwriting; General coordination"
## [1797] "Factors: Externalizing; Internalizing."
## [1798] "Factors: Cognitive; Emotional; Social; Metacognitive."
## [1799] "Subscales: Supporting Good Behavior; Setting Limits; Proactive Parenting."
## [1800] "Factors (higher-order): Learning goal orientation; Performance approach goal orientation; Performance avoidance goal orientation; Work avoidance goal orientation. Factors (lower-order): Pedagogical; Content; Pedagogical-content; Approach-Colleagues; Approach-Principal; Approach-Students; Approach-Self; Avoidance-Colleagues; Avoidance-Principal; Avoidance-Students; Avoidance-Self; Work avoidance."
## [1801] "Subscales: Confidence to Care; Doubts and Concerns."
## [1802] "Subscales: Learning goal orientation; Performance approach goal orientation; Performance avoidance goal orientation; Work avoidance goal orientation."
## [1803] "Factors: Actual or potential injuries; Self-harm."
## [1804] "Factors: Observing; Describing; Acting with Awareness; Non-judging of inner experience; Non-reactivity to inner experience"
## [1805] "Facets: Observing; Describing; Acting with Awareness; Non-judging of internal experience; Non-reactivity to internal experience"
## [1806] "Factors: Adaptive; Less adaptive."
## [1807] "Subscales: Attachment; Mastery; Spirituality."
## [1808] "Factors: Intolerance of uncertainty (IU); Negative problem orientation (NPO); Cognitive avoidance (CA)."
## [1809] "Latent Dimensions: relational closeness; anthropomorphic autonomy; critical concern; sense of control"
## [1810] "Subscales: Universality; Connectedness."
## [1811] "Factors: General episodic memory; retrospective memory; prospective memory"
## [1812] "Subscales: Information; Friendship; Influence; Entertainment."
## [1813] "Subscales: Craving; Tolerance; Abstinence; Lack of Control."
## [1814] "Subscales: Cybervictimization; Cyberaggression."
## [1815] "Factors: Integration and needs satisfaction; membership status; influence; shared emotional relations."
## [1816] "Subscales: Mother Helpless; Mother Frightened; Child Frightened; Child Cheers Mothers; Child Caregiving."
## [1817] "Subscales: Fame; Wealth; Image; Personal growth; Relationships; Community; Intrinsic aspirations subscales; Extrinsic aspirations subscales."
## [1818] "Factors: General Physical Activity (PA); Work-Related Activities (W)."
## [1819] "Factors/Dimensions: Teamwork preparation (Mission analysis; Goal specification; Action planning); Execution (Coordination; Cooperation; Communication); Evaluation (Performance monitoring; Systems monitoring); Adjustment (Problem-solving; Innovation; Intrateam coaching; Backing up); Management of team maintenance (MTM) (Integrative conflict management; Psychological support)."
## [1820] "Subscales: Anxiety; Enjoyment."
## [1821] "Subscales: Intimate others; Social others; Belonging and affiliation."
## [1822] "Subscales: Importance; Effort."
## [1823] "Factors: Intensity; Imagery; Intrusiveness."
## [1824] "Factors: Psychoticism; Extraversion; Neuroticism; Lie."
## [1825] "Subscales: Modeling; Logistical support; Regulation."
## [1826] "Subscales: Concerns about health; Concerns about recovery; Concerns about procedures."
## [1827] "Subscales: Digitization; Flexibility; Dissolution; Participation; Relevance."
## [1828] "Factors: Affection-Motivation; Confidence; Usefulness."
## [1829] "Factors: social acceptance; negative emotions; school satisfaction; self-assessment"
## [1830] "Factors: Depression/Hopelessness; Suicidal intention/ideation; Social isolation; Lack of family support"
## [1831] "Subscales: Operational Skills; Instructional Usage; Informational Skills; General Usage; Strategic Skills; Exogenous Motivation; Endogenous Motivation."
## [1832] "Subscales: Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism; Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism; Other-Oriented Performance Perfectionism."
## [1833] "Subscales: Anger; Fear; Sadness. Factors: Supportive Strategies; Unsupportive Strategies."
## [1834] "Subscales: Generic HRQL; Fatigue; Pain; Sexual function/satisfaction; Bladder function; Bowel function; Visual function; Cognitive function; Emotional status; Social relationships and support."
## [1835] "Factors: Negative Consequences; Positive Reinforcement; Negative Reinforcement Appetite/Weight Control."
## [1836] "Subscales: Unusual perceptions; Unusual salience/reality monitoring; unusual beliefs"
## [1837] "Subscales: Behavioural approach system (BAS); Fight, flight and freeze system (FFFS); Behavioural inhibition system (BIS)."
## [1838] "Factors: Core Characteristic of repetitive negative thinking; Unproductivity of repetitive negative thinking; Mental Capacity Captured by repetitive negative thinking."
## [1839] "Factors: Preferences Scale (PS); Strength of preference (SOP); Time awareness (TA)."
## [1840] "Factors: Passive outsider online; Defender of the cybervictim online; Reinforcer of the cyberbully online; Passive face-to-face outsider; Face-to-face defender of the cybervictim; and Face-to-face reinforcer of the cyberbully."
## [1841] "Subscales: Sensitivity; Cooperation."
## [1842] "Factor 1: relatively light activities of daily living. Factor 2: sport-related and strenuous activities for the knee."
## [1843] "Subscales: working conditions (7 items); psychosocial factors in the workplace (5 items); opportunities for training and development (2 items); compensation and rewards (5 items); job satisfaction and job security (4 items)."
## [1844] "Factors: Tension and Discomfort; Embarrassment; Sexual and Reproductive Consequences; Health Consequences."
## [1845] "Subscales: General; Specific."
## [1846] "Factors: Alcohol consumption; Drinking behavior/Alcohol-related problems."
## [1847] "Subscales: Saving; Acquisition."
## [1848] "Subscales: Corporate environmental sustainability strategy; corporate social sustainability strategy."
## [1849] "Subscales: Cognitive-affective appraisal; Situational precondition."
## [1850] "Subscales: Work; Home; Social; Health; Finance; Academic."
## [1851] "Factors: Rigidity/flexibility of sleeping habits (Factor 'R'); Ability/inability to overcome drowsiness (Factor 'V'); Morningness/eveningness (Factor 'M'). Subscales: Inability to sleep at unusual times ('R' subfactor 1); Preference for regular sleeping times ('R' subfactor 4); Relatively low level of drowsiness after reduced sleep ('V' subfactor 3); Ability to overcome drowsiness when necessary ('V' subfactor 5); To feel livelier and to prefer working, at 'normal' times of day ('M' subfactor 6); To find it easy to get up early in the morning ('M' subfactor 7)."
## [1852] "Subscales: Skills; Emotion; Performance; Interaction; Attitude."
## [1853] "Subscales: Teacher Support; Positive Student Affiliation; Negative Student Interactions; Unstructured Classroom Environment."
## [1854] "Subscales: trauma related stressors, social stressors, familial stressors, emotional stressors and personal stressors."
## [1855] "Subscales: Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice (VE), Roles and Responsibilities (RR), Interprofessional Communication (IC), and Teams and Teamwork (TT)."
## [1856] "Factors: Creative Potential; Practised Creativity."
## [1857] "Subscales: Idealistic distortion; Marital satisfaction; Personality issues; Communication; Conflict resolution; Financial management; Leisure activities; Sexual relationship; Children and parenting; Family and friends; Equalitarian roles; Religious orientation; Marital cohesion; Marital change."
## [1858] "Subscales: Social/Leisure; Student."
## [1859] "Factors: Sexual Confidence and Functioning; Cognitive-Emotional Regulation; Specific Sexual Functioning."
## [1860] "Subscales: Self; Self & Others."
## [1861] "Factors: Negotiated exchange orientation (NEO); Reciprocal exchange orientation (REO); Generalized exchange orientation (GEO): Unilateral giving with an expectation of indirect reciprocation (UG); Paying it forward (PIF); Rewarding reputation (RR)."
## [1862] "Factors: Perceived coercion; External pressure; Choice expression."
## [1863] "Factors: Competence; Suspicion."
## [1864] "Factors: Sense of Mastery; Sense of Relatedness; Emotional Reactivity. Subscales: Optimism subscale (Mastery); Adaptability subscale (Mastery); Self-Efficacy subscale (Mastery); Comfort subscale (Relatedness); Trust subscale (Relatedness); Tolerance subscale (Relatedness); Support subscale (Relatedness); Recovery subscale (Reactivity); Sensitivity subscale (Reactivity); Impairment subscale (Reactivity)."
## [1865] "Factors: Academic achievement of mainstream students; Social benefits for mainstream students; Academic achievement of students with SEN; Social benefits for students with SEN."
## [1866] "Subscales: Private Religious Self-Esteem; Public Religious Self-Esteem; Importance to Religious Identity."
## [1867] "Factors: Safety; Emotional risk; Neighbor-hood factors; Gun presence; Social perceptions."
## [1868] "Subscales: Shared Positive Views and Values; Active Engagement; Solo Parenting."
## [1869] "Factors (some constructs and sub-constructs had one or two items and could not be validated through CFA): Laissez-Faire; Pressuring; Restrictive (Diet Quality); Indulgence (Permissive, Coaxing, Soothing, Pampering)."
## [1870] "Factors: Extraversion; Verträglichkeit; Conscientiousness (Gewissenhaftigkeit); Negative Emotionality (Negative Emotionalität); Open-Mindedness (Offenheit)."
## [1871] "Factors: Professional/specialist expertise (Berufliche Expertise/Fachliche Expertise); Labour market knowledge (Arbeitsmarktwissen); General (Allgemeine); Importance of the work/study (Wichtigkeit der Arbeit/des Studiums); Confidence (Zutrauen); Clarity (Klarheit); Development opportunities (Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten); Organisational support/support of the university (Organisationale Unterstützung/Unterstützung der Hochschule); Work challenge (Arbeitsherausforderung); Social support (Soziale Unterstützung); Networking (Netzwerken); Informing about possibilities (Informieren über Möglichkeiten); Continuous learning (Kontinuierliches Lernen)."
## [1872] "Subscales: Pleasure; Recreation; Flow experience."
## [1873] "Factors: PDA (Factor 1, unrotated solution). Factors (rotated): Agoraphobia/Disability; Anticipatory anxiety/Assumption of organic disease; Panic attack. Subscales: Panic attacks; Phobic avoidance; Anticipatory anxiety; Disability; Worries about health."
## [1874] "Factors: Cognitive reevaluation; Suppression."
## [1875] "Factors: Behavioral Control; School Cognitive Performance; Socialization."
## [1876] "Subscales: Navigation and orientation; Distance estimation; Spatial anxiety."
## [1877] "Factors: Relatedness support; Autonomy support; Structure before the activity; Structure during the activity."
## [1878] "Factors: Reactive Attachment Disorder; Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder"
## [1879] "Subscales: Use; Effectiveness. Factors: Present-oriented use; Future-oriented use; Present-oriented effectiveness; Future-oriented effectiveness."
## [1880] "Factors: Family mealtime communication; Family mealtime stress; Appearance weight control; Mealtime structure."
## [1881] "Subscales: Prohibitive Utilitarian; Prohibitive Retributive; Permissive Utilitarian; Permissive Retributive."
## [1882] "Scales: Upper Extremity Functional Index; Lower Extremity Functional Index."
## [1883] "Sections: Somatometry (SM); Developmental behavior (DB); Developmental reactions (DR); Warning signs (WS)."
## [1884] "Subscales: Economic/occupational expectations; Academic expectations; Personal well-being expectations; Family expectations."
## [1885] "Subscales: Independence; Interdependence."
## [1886] "Factors: Birth-related symptoms (BRS); General symptoms (GS)."
## [1887] "Subscales: Physical; Psychosocial."
## [1888] "Factor structure: Unidimensional"
## [1889] "Subscales: Retribution and Revenge; Death Penalty is a Deterrent."
## [1890] "Dimensions: Mobility; Looking after myself; Doing usual activities; Having pain or discomfort; Feeling worried, sad, or unhappy."
## [1891] "Factors: Work–Life-Balance; Supervision; Feedback from Supervisors; Social Structure; Organization"
## [1892] "Subscales: Nocturnal sleep (NS); Daytime sleepiness (DS)."
## [1893] "Factors: Interventions; Leadership; Psychoeducation; Seek Input."
## [1894] "Eight Factors (personality dimensions): Achievement motivation; Autonomy; Innovativeness; Self-efficacy; Locus of control; Optimism; Stress tolerance; Risk taking"
## [1895] "Factors: Communication Disturbance; Phone Obsession."
## [1896] "Factors: Vertical Involvement; Diagonal Interaction; Horizontal Intimacy; and Horizontal Influence."
## [1897] "Subscales: Coparenting Agreement; Coparenting Closeness; Exposure to Conflict; Coparenting Support; Coparenting Undermining; Endorse Partner Parenting; Division of Labor."
## [1898] "Subscales: Gaining attention (GA); Informing learners of the objective(s) (IO); Presenting the stimulus materials (PSM); Stimulating recall of prior knowledge (RK); Providing learning guidance (PG); Eliciting performance (EP); Getting feedback from others (FO); Getting self-feedback."
## [1899] "Subscales: Solve information, communication and collaboration tasks in digital environment; Develop an information product and guide students to solve tasks in a digital environment."
## [1900] "Factors: Daytime Distress or Impairment; Insomnia Symptoms."
## [1901] "Subscales: Information systems; Knowledge sharing; Service quality; System quality; Technological factors."
## [1902] "Subscales: Workplace values; Heteronormative assumptions; Cisnormative culture."
## [1903] "Subscales: Microinvalidations; Assumption of Pathology; Heterosexist Language; Enforcement of Binary Gender Roles; Environmental Microaggressions."
## [1904] "Factors: Values attainment; Persistence with barriers. Major life domains: Work/Education, Relationships, Leisure, Health/Personal Growth."
## [1905] "Factors: Cognitive Fusion (CF); Experiential Avoidance (EA)."
## [1906] "Factors: Cognitive fusion; Experiential avoidance; Inaction of behavioral ineffectiveness."
## [1907] "Factors: Coping; Control; Consequences."
## [1908] "Subscales: Object control skills; Locomotor skills."
## [1909] "Subscales: Physical functioning; Social functioning; Role limitations (physical); Role limitations (emotional); Mental health; Vitality; Pain; General health; Health change"
## [1910] "Subscales: Outness to the world; Outness to family."
## [1911] "Factors: Cognitive Interference; Physiological Hyperarousal; Social Concerns; Task-Irrelevant Behaviors; Worry; Facilitating Anxiety."
## [1912] "Factors: Peer Acceptance; Peer Friendship."
## [1913] "Subscales: Social isolation within the classroom (SIWC); Social isolation outside school (SIOS)."
## [1914] "Subscales: Respecting parental authority; Experiencing parental control; Adopting parents’ values/beliefs; Questioning parents’ beliefs/authority."
## [1915] "Subscales: Negative affective; Detachment; Dissocial; Disinhibition; Anankastic."
## [1916] "Factors: Factor 1: Communicative-relational management; Factor 2: Educational action; Factor 3: Involvement in research for educational innovation; Factor 4: Work ethics; Factor 5: Design."
## [1917] "Subscales: Negative Consequences of WhatsApp Use (NCWU); Controlling Intimate Relationships through WhatsApp (CIRW); Problematic Use of WhatsApp (PUW)."
## [1918] "Subscales: Positive Communication; Negative Communication."
## [1919] "Subscales: Frequency; Difficulty. Factors: Communication; Medical Care; Role Function; Emotional Functioning."
## [1920] "Subscales: Insecure Attachment, Undeserving Self-Image, and Self-Sacrificing Nature."
## [1921] "Subscales: Rigid perfectionism; Self-critical perfectionism; Narcissistic perfectionism."
## [1922] "Factors: Recognition; Engagement; Competition; Sharing and Sociability"
## [1923] "Factors: System to win; Superstitions; Follow and blame."
## [1924] "Factors: Passive vs. Active coping; Coping with an Oedipal conflict; Need for independence from others; Need for control; Need for others in coping"
## [1925] "Subscales: Physiological Anxiety; Worry/Social Anxiety; Defensiveness. Factors: Worry and Social Anxiety; Physiological Anxiety; Defensiveness I; Defensiveness II."
## [1926] "Subscales: Physical Deprivation; Boredom Escape Smoking; Affective Deprivation; Alcohol Consumption Incidence."
## [1927] "Subscales: Autonomy support; Warmth; Knowledge."
## [1928] "Subscales: Affirmative Active; Affirmative Passive; Negative Active; Negative Passive."
## [1929] "Factors: Perceived benefits; Perceived self-efficacy; Perceived barriers; Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity; Cues to action; Breast self-examination behaviour."
## [1930] "Factors: Descriptive norms; Injunctive norms; Instrumental attitudes; Affective attitudes; and Perceived behavioral control (PBC)."
## [1931] "Subscales: Compassion fatigue/secondary traumatic stress; Compassion satisfaction; Burnout."
## [1932] "Factors: Autonomy; Environmental mastery; Personal growth; Positive relations to others; Purpose in life; Self-acceptance."
## [1933] "Factors: Prescriptive Beauty Norm (PBN); Body attribute standards; Attainabilty; Grooming standards"
## [1934] "Subscales: Ease of Excitation; Aesthetic Sensitivity; Low Sensory Threshold."
## [1935] "Subscales: Narcissism; Psychopathy; Machiavellianism."
## [1936] "Factors: Superiority; Exploitativeness."
## [1937] "Factors: Death-related; Moral; Food-related; Sexual; Pathogen disgust."
## [1938] "Subscales: Mindset of emotion and behavior; Mindset of intelligence; Perseverance."
## [1939] "Subscales: Regret for one's life; Regret for purchase; Maximization."
## [1940] "Subscales: Self-Relatedness; Environment-Directedness."
## [1941] "Subscales: Consistency of Interest; Perseverance of Effort."
## [1942] "Subscales: Belonging; Agency; Optimism."
## [1943] "Factors: Social mastery-approach goals; Social mastery-avoidance goals; Social performance-approach goals; Social performance-avoidance goals."
## [1944] "Subscales: Internal; Chance; Health Care Professionals."
## [1945] "Subscales: Beliefs related to drug use; Beliefs related to craving. Factors: What the person believes that he or she will not be able to do in the absence of the effect of the substance; Lack of withdrawal; Conditions required to decide to use drugs again; Consumption makes you feel good about yourself and develops your potential; Craving when faced with negative emotional states; Difficulty to deal with craving; Craving with positive emotional states or well-being."
## [1946] "Subscales: Denial of Gender Identity; Misuse of Pronouns; Invasion of Bodily Privacy; Behavioral Discomfort; Denial of Societal Transphobia."
## [1947] "Factors: Mealtime Communication Based Stress; Mealtime Structure; Appearance-Weight Control; Parental Mealtime Control; Emphasis on Mother's Weight; Present Parental Meal Influence; Traditional Family."
## [1948] "Subscales: Support; Conflict; Depth."
## [1949] "Factors: Nearness of God; Fundamentalism-Humanitarianism"
## [1950] "Factors: Protective Factors; Problematic Behavior; Rehabilitation Skills"
## [1951] "Subscales: Meal presentation; Food variety; Meal disengagement; Taste aversion."
## [1952] "Subscales: Cognitive Interference; Physiological Hyperarousal; Social Concerns; Task Irrelevant Behaviors; Worry."
## [1953] "Subscales: Network responsiveness; Access to collective efficacy."
## [1954] "Subscales: Helpful involvement; Harmful involvement."
## [1955] "Factors: Management of the disease; Cognitive distress; Interpersonal distress."
## [1956] "Subscales: Relationship distress; Physical, psychological, and sexual violence."
## [1957] "Factors: Problem-focused coping; Maladaptive emotional coping; Distancing emotional coping."
## [1958] "Subscales: Interpersonal trust (trust); Interpersonal liking (liking); Similarity of business values (similar); Frequency of personal interaction (frequent)."
## [1959] "Subscales: Discrimination; Isolation; Homesickness; Cultural shock; Guilt; Hate; Social support; Poor self image; Sad; Safety; Academic challenges."
## [1960] "Subscales: Mutual Communication; Mutual Relationship; Attention and Support; Availability and Providing Comfort; Mutual Care."
## [1961] "Factors: Psychosocial impact; Physical impact."
## [1962] "Factors: Psychiatric symptoms; Interpersonal Relations; Social-role functioning"
## [1963] "Factors: Criterion B (e.g., preoccupation with the deceased and/or circumstances of the death); Criterion C (e.g., reactive distress and/or social/identity disruption)."
## [1964] "Support subscales: Emotional; Practical; Negative Support Experiences; Inadequacy of Support"
## [1965] "Factors: Likelihood to develop articular and extra-articular manifestations; Likelihood to develop complications and/or comorbidities and disease severity; Likelihood to develop socioeconomic unfavorable consequences; Perception of personal responsibility to prevent and develop RA-related complications; Perception of personal control over the disease."
## [1966] "Factors: Foundation skills; Performance skills; Interpersonal skills; Self-talk; Mental imagery."
## [1967] "Structure: Care/justice in peer relationships; Care/justice in intimate relationships; Care/justice in the workplace; Care/justice in family relationships."
## [1968] "Subscales: Technology Knowledge (TK); Content Knowledge (CK); Pedagogical Knowledge (PK); Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK); Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK); Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)."
## [1969] "Factors: Lack of concern regarding others’ reactions; Desire to not always follow rules; Willingness to defend one’s beliefs publicly."
## [1970] "Factors: Emotional support; Concrete support; Role approval."
## [1971] "Subscales: Negative Affect Reduction; Stimulation/State Enhancement; Health Risks; Taste/Sensorimotor Manipulation; Social Facilitation; Weight Control; Negative Physical Feelings; Boredom Reduction; Negative Social Impression."
## [1972] "Factors: Thought Overactivation; Burden of Thought Overactivation; Thought Overexcitability."
## [1973] "Factors: Loneliness; Self-regulation; Cell Phone Addiction; Technology-family conflict; Technology-work conflict; Technology-personal conflict."
## [1974] "Factors: Affective dysregulation; Avoidance; Disturbances in relationships; Negative self-concept; Re-experiencing in the here and now; Sense of threat."
## [1975] "Factors: Attachment Anxiety; Attachment Avoidance; Satisfaction of the Need for Relatedness; Satisfaction of the Need for Self-Presentation; Satisfaction of the Need for Autonomy; SNS Addiction; Computer Playfulness; IT Innovativeness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; Neuroticism; Intensity of Use; Social Desirability Bias; Fashion consciousness."
## [1976] "Factors: Avoidant; Dependent; Obsessive– compulsive; Histrionic; Paranoid; Schizoid; Schizotypal; Antisocial; Narcissistic."
## [1977] "Factors: Fear; Obligation/Guilt."
## [1978] "Factors: Affective-Identity Motivation to Lead; Social–Normative Motivation to Lead; Noncalculative Motivation to Lead."
## [1979] "Subscales: (COH-INT) Leadership commitment and support; Communications and engagement strategy; Programs and policies; Physical activity and nutrition; Psychological well-being; Participation; (COH-EXT) Organizational commitment; Charitable giving; Employee volunteerism; Public leadership"
## [1980] "Subscales: Concentration; Emotion; Hearing; Sleep."
## [1981] "Subscales: Guilt-proneness; Shame-proneness."
## [1982] "Factors: Nutrition; Social support; Avoiding diabetes; Physical activity; Problem solving; and Challenges related to being healthy."
## [1983] "Factors [Direct Measure of Attitude]: Cognitive; Affective."
## [1984] "Factors: Meeting Expectations; Discipline; Burden."
## [1985] "Factors: Dependency/Restrictions; Changes in Social Activities; Physical Symptoms; Changes in Family Roles."
## [1986] "Scales (subscales): Burden (Physical Burden; Psychological Burden; Economic Burden; Familial; Social Burden); Benefit (Physical; Psychological; Economic; Familial; Social)."
## [1987] "Subscales: Resistance to Framing (RtF); Recognizing Social Norms (RSN); Under/ Overconfidence (UOC); Applying Decision Rules (ADR); Consistency in Risk Perception (CRP); Resistance to Sunk Costs (RtSC)."
## [1988] "Factors: Personal/Psychosocial Barriers; Program Barriers."
## [1989] "Subscales: Job knowledge; Acculturation to the organization; Establishing relationship; Satisfaction with learning experiences."
## [1990] "Subscales: Organizational adjustment; Group adjustment; Task adjustment."
## [1991] "Factors: Transcendence (TR); Fidelity (FI); Contribution (CO)."
## [1992] "Subscales: Transcendence; Fidelity."
## [1993] "Factors: Contentment; Inner-Peace."
## [1994] "Factors: Fluctuant Subjective Happiness; Long-Lasting Happiness."
## [1995] "Factors: Contentment; Inner Peace"
## [1996] "Subscales: Adaptive Coping; Maladaptive Coping."
## [1997] "Subscales (extended version): Value; Image; Specificity; Accuracy. Subscales (brief version): Value; Image; Specificity."
## [1998] "Subscales: Affective; Moral; Identification with goals and values."
## [1999] "Subscales: Separation Anxiety; Couple’s Affective Expression; Change of Plans; Fear of Loneliness; Borderline Expression; Attention seeking."
## [2000] "Subscales: Motivation to relieve suffering; Affective reaction to suffering; Compassion towards animals."
## [2001] "Subscales: Content; Support; Facilitation."
## [2002] "Subscales: Awareness; Motivation; Determination; Elasticity; Communication; Sociability; Endurance; Emotionality; Proactivity; Commitment; Productivity; Dynamism; Cooperativeness; Leadership; Reliability"
## [2003] "Unidimensional Factor: Memory Ability"
## [2004] "Subscales: Temporal lobe experience; Chemosensation; Clinical psychosis."
## [2005] "Factors: Student-centered practices from students' perception; Student-centered practices from teachers' perception; Teacher-centered practices; Self-efficacy in troubleshooting; Self-efficacy in teaching; Utility and importance of problem-solving"
## [2006] "Subscales: Cancer Worry; Risk Perception."
## [2007] "Subscales: Cognitive problems/fatigue; Sexuality concerns; Urogenital symptoms; Weight concerns; Nausea; Musculoskeletal symptoms; Vasomotor/arm symptoms."
## [2008] "Subscales: Intrinsic Motivation (IM); Integrated Regulation (INT); Identified Regulation (ID); Introjected Regulation (IJ); External Regulation (ER); Amotivation (AM)."
## [2009] "Factors: Relationship to one’s own voice; Awareness of one’s own voice; Voice and emotion."
## [2010] "Subscales: Physical; Emotional; Social; Sensory."
## [2011] "Subscales: Intellectual; Personality; Meta-skills; Job specific. Factors: Foundation skills; Core business skills; Cognitive skills; Self-management skills; Innovation and creativity; System-thinking skills; Teamwork and political skills; Communication skills; Information Technology skills; Leadership skills."
## [2012] "Subscales: Internet Addiction (AI); Videogames Addiction (AV)."
## [2013] "Subscales: Effortful control; Surgency; Negative Affect."
## [2014] "Subscales: Leadership; Total quality; Mission; Technology; Adaptability."
## [2015] "PISA Model Categories: information access and retrieval; interpretation and integration; reflection on and evaluation of content. Internet Scenarios: Forums; Wikipedia; Youth Web; Google."
## [2016] "Factors (elementary school youth): General; Optimistic future orientation; Thrift; Civic strengths. Factors (middle school youth): General; Perseverance; Respect; Leadership; Optimism; Teamwork. Factors (high school youth): General; Future orientation; Thrift; Integrity; Respect; Leadership; Optimism; Teamwork."
## [2017] "Factors: Egocentric; Adaptive; Pathological."
## [2018] "Domain Factors: Why ADS is used; Events prior to ADS use; Process of ADS use: why ADS does not work; Process of ADS use: why ADS does work; Pathways to benefits. Subscales: Social reasons for ADS use; Logistical reasons for ADS use; Events prior to ADS use; Dissatisfaction with ADS use; Problems with ADS use; Temporal issues with ADS use; Perceived quality of ADS; Engagement process in ADS; Health benefit; Memory and functional benefit of ADS; Lack of interaction problems; ADS is essential"
## [2019] "Factors: Concern with Performance; Self-Doubt."
## [2020] "Factors: Beliefs about Sharing Struggles; Benefits of Sharing Illness Experiences."
## [2021] "Factors: Family consequences; Internal emotions; Dangerous escape; Individual consequences; Destructive assumptions."
## [2022] "Factors: Relational Decency (RD); Relational Culture (RCu); Relational Readiness (RR)."
## [2023] "Factors: Level; Benefit; Increase; Structure."
## [2024] "Subscales: Physical symptom distress score; Psychological symptom distress score; Global Distress Index; Total distress symptom score."
## [2025] "Factors: Speech Characteristic of the Word (SC); Situational Difficulty (SD); Compensatory Strategies (CS); Perceived Reactions of Others (PR)."
## [2026] "Subscales: Physical symptom distress score (CMSAS PHYS); Psychological symptom frequency score (CMSAS PSYCH); Total symptom distress score (CMSAS SUM)."
## [2027] "Factors: Physical well-being; Emotional well-being; Social/family well-being; Relationship with M.D.; Functional well-being. Subscales: Physical symptom distress (CMSAS PHYS); Psychological distress subscale (CMSAS PSYCH); Total symptom distress (CMSAS SUM)."
## [2028] "Factors: Entrepreneurship; Leadership; Professionalism."
## [2029] "Factors: Yielding; Revenge; Verbal aggression; Malice"
## [2030] "Factors: Learner–content interaction; Learner–instructor interaction; Learner– learner interaction."
## [2031] "Factors: Work Execution; Interpersonal labor relations."
## [2032] "Factors: Emotional (EMO); Social (SOC); Physical (PHY); Academic (ACA); Creative Self-Esteem (CREA)."
## [2033] "Peer-group integration, Peer-personal intimacy, Family-group integration, and Family-personal intimacy."
## [2034] "Factors: General subjective financial well-being; Financial future; Money management; Having money; Peer comparison."
## [2035] "Factors: Avoidance of Social Roles; Complaint; Low Self-Esteem."
## [2036] "Factors: Couple bond; Family responsibility; Religion; Relationship self-regulation."
## [2037] "Dimensions: Father’s childhood family structure; Perceived social support; Couple communication and marital satisfaction; Job stress; General stress; Masculinity; Personal control; Empathy; Role conflict/strain of being a parent; Family leave."
## [2038] "Factors: Working conditions and job satisfaction; Confidence to execute delegated tasks; Excessive demands associated with executing delegated tasks; Relevance of task shifting for patient care."
## [2039] "Factors: Protective Behaviors; Problematic Behaviors; Resocialization Skills."
## [2040] "Factors: Theoretical-Reflexive; Pragmatic; Individual Active; Interpersonal Active."
## [2041] "Factors: Support for vocational exploration; Support for vocational decision-making"
## [2042] "Factors: Intrusion; Arousal; Avoidance."
## [2043] "Factors: Homework Absorption; Enjoy; Intrinsic Motivation."
## [2044] "Factors: Cooperation; Conflict; Triangulation."
## [2045] "Factors: General factor; Difficulty with change; Emotional overcontrol; Maladaptive perfectionism; Reluctance to delegate."
## [2046] "Factors: Expectation confirmation; Perceived advantage; Aesthetic experience; Perceived enjoyment; Augmented Reality satisfaction; Attitudes toward a destination (cognitive and affective); Behavioral intention toward a destination."
## [2047] "Factors: Benefits of Disclosure; Convenience Orientation; General Privacy Concerns; Perceived Security; Positive Emotions; Negative Emotions; Willingness to Disclose."
## [2048] "Subscales: Attention (ATT); Interest (INT); Desires (DE); Behavioral intentions (BI); Attitude (AT); Subjective norms (SN); Perceived behavioral control (PBC); Positive anticipated emotion (PAE); Negative anticipated emotion (NAE); Frequency of past behavior."
## [2049] "Factors: Cognitive; Behavioral."
## [2050] "Factors: Learning about your baby; Taking care of yourself and your family; Taking care of your baby."
## [2051] "Subscales: Nausea; Oculomotor."
## [2052] "Subscales: Thought overactivation; Burden of thought overactivation; Thought overexcitability."
## [2053] "Factors: First-Order: Re-experiencing; Avoidance; Sense of Threat; Affective Dysregulation; Negative Self-concept; Disturbed Relationships. Second-Order: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Disturbances in Self-Organisation."
## [2054] "Factors: Concentration; Confidence; Activation; Motivation"
## [2055] "Factors: Social values; Personal values; Individualistic values."
## [2056] "Factors: Brief Decisional Self-Efficacy; Coping Efficacy."
## [2057] "Subscales: Enjoyment; Absorption; Creative thinking; Activation; Absence of negative affect; Dominance."
## [2058] "Subscales: Connecting; Nostalgia; Informed; Enjoyment; Advice; Affirmation; Enhances My Life; Influence."
## [2059] "Subscales: Identity; Spirituality; Calming; Recognition or Praise from Others."
## [2060] "Dimensions: Subcultural influence; Professional relationship with inmates; Use of force; General good conduct and good officer; Professional coworker relationship."
## [2061] "Constructs: Perceived susceptibility; Perceived seriousness; Perceived threat; Perceived benefit; Perceived barrier; Cues to action; Self efficacy; Adherence."
## [2062] "Subscales: Communicative responsiveness (CR)-same; Communicative responsiveness (CR)-other."
## [2063] "Factors: Unwanted consequences; Lack of control; Negative affect; Affect regulation."
## [2064] "Factors: Preference for additional visual information; Satisfaction with standard health information."
## [2065] "Subscales: Ideal Expectations; Predicted Expectations."
## [2066] "Factors: Student Negotiation; Inquiry Learning; Reflective Thinking; Functional Design; Connectedness; Ease of Use; Perceived Usefulness; Multiple Sources."
## [2067] "Subscales: Effort Expectancy; Performance Expectancy; Behavioral Intention; Use Behavior; Social Influence; Facilitating conditions."
## [2068] "Factors: Relationship; Cognitive procedures; Operative and transfer procedures; Exposition; Practicing and suggestive procedures."
## [2069] "Subscales: Self-Perception; Object Perception; Self-Regulation; Regulation of the Relationship with the Object; Internal Emotional Communication; External Emotional Communication; Internal Links; External Links."
## [2070] "Subscales: Anticipated criticism/rejection; Negative self-appraisals."
## [2071] "Factors: Awareness of surroundings; Frightening experiences; Recall of experience; Satisfaction with care."
## [2072] "Factors: Interactive solution style (Interaktiver Lösungsstil); Openness to change (Offenheit für Veränderung); Access to feelings (Zugang zu Gefühlen); Interest in understanding yourself and others (Interesse, sich selbst und andere zu verstehen)."
## [2073] "Subscales: Reading; Movie; Activity; Lecture; Conversation; Assignment; Cooking; Cleaning up; Driving."
## [2074] "Factors: Attachment Avoidance; Attachment Anxiety."
## [2075] "Factors: Intrapersonal characteristics (IPC); Interactive function (IAF); Health complete (HC)."
## [2076] "Subscales: Protectiveness; Worry; Vigilance; Confidence."
## [2077] "Categories: (1) auto-aggression; (2) externalized aggression; (3) verbal aggression (4) isolation; (5) (motoric) restlessness; (6) autonomic changes; (7) emotional changes; (8) behavioral changes."
## [2078] "Subscales: Cognitive and help-seeking; Emotion control; Elaboration and practical application; Motivation control."
## [2079] "Violation types: Harm; Purity"
## [2080] "Conscientiousness; Agreeableness; Emotional stability."
## [2081] "Factors: Physical aggression; Verbal aggression; Anger; Hostility."
## [2082] "Subscales: Satisfaction with Eating (PES-Sat); Pleasure when Eating (PES-Pl)."
## [2083] "Factors: Planning preparation; Spiritual-positive coping; Avoidance."
## [2084] "Subscales: Cognitive worry (CW); Emotionality (EM); Distraction (DT)."
## [2085] "Subscales: Dampening; Positive Rumination."
## [2086] "Subscales: Self-focus; Dampening; Emotion-focus."
## [2087] "Subscales: Routine; Automaticity."
## [2088] "Subscales: Cumulative Humiliation Subscale (CHS); Fear of Humiliation Subscale (FHS)."
## [2089] "Subscales: Internalizing behavior; Externalizing behavior; Social competence."
## [2090] "Factors: Initiating and maintaining calcium intake; Initiating and maintaining exercise."
## [2091] "Factors: Perceived Susceptibility; Perceived Severity; Perceived Benefits; Perceived Barriers."
## [2092] "Factors: Belief-in-self; Belief-in-others; Emotional competence; Engaged living. Subscales: Self-efficacy; Persistence; Self-awareness; Family support; Institutional support; Peer support; Cognitive reappraisal; Empathy; Self-regulation; Gratitude; Zest; Optimism."
## [2093] "Subscales: Statistical literacy; Statistical reasoning."
## [2094] "Subscales: Characterological; Achievement; Interpersonal Conflict; Intimacy; Existential; Childhood; Physical; Relationship."
## [2095] "Subscales: Biologic health; Social and cognitive strategies; Health safeguard behaviors."
## [2096] "Subscales: Objective Positive (OP); Subjective Negative (SN); Objective Negative (ON); Subjective Positive (SP)."
## [2097] "Subscales: Negative affect; Self-esteem; Anxiety; Physical discomfort; Physical limitations; Self-consciousness; Intimacy."
## [2098] "Scales: Family support; Peer support; Professional support. Subscales: Family Healthy Eating Support; Family Physical Activity Support; Family Hypocritical Control; Peer Health Eating Support; Peer Physical Activity Support; Peer Undermining; Professional Healthy Eating Support; Professional Physical Activity Support; Professional General Support."
## [2099] "Subscales: Capacity; Alliance."
## [2100] "Subscales: Departmental values; Confidence; Frequency."
## [2101] "Subscales: Identification; Parasocial relationship; Post-disclosure hope; Post-disclosure fear; Severity; Susceptibility; Self-efficacy; Response efficacy; Individual behavioral intentions."
## [2102] "Factors: Confidence in teaching; Motivation for teaching; Preparation to provide teaching; Preparation to lead initiatives in EOL care; Expected influences on participants."
## [2103] "Subscales: Pain; Stiffness; Physical Function"
## [2104] "Subscales: Satisfaction and attention received from the partner (S); Similarity between the partners (SI); Communication between partners (CO); Couple conflicts (CF); Time available for the couple (T); Difficulties to decide to be parents (DP)."
## [2105] "Factors: Behavioral inhibition system (BIS); Behavioral activation system (BAS); Fight; Flight; Freeze."
## [2106] "Factors: Prevention strategy; Promotion strategy."
## [2107] "Subscales: TRAP-Intensive; TRAP-Extensive."
## [2108] "Factors: Core scales in Part I: Anxiety; Sense of dejection; Negative impact on behavior; Negative impact on sleep. Part II: Cervical cancer; Relaxed/calm; Social network; Existential values; Impulsivity; Empathy."
## [2109] "Subscales: Leadership; Verbal hostility; Military way of thinking; Fear-Suspiciousness; Achievement motivation."
## [2110] "Dimensions: Part I: Anxiety, Behavior, Dejection, Sleep, Self-blame, Focus on airway symptoms, Stigmatization, Introvert, Harm of smoking; Part II: Calm/relax, Social network, Existential values, Impulsivity, Empathy, Regretful of still smoking."
## [2111] "Factors: Intention to Quit Employment (Intenção de Deixar o emprego); Intention to seek new job opportunities (Intenção de buscar novas oportunidades de emprego); Reflections on leaving your current job (Reflexões sobre sair do emprego atual); Job Search Behavior (Comportamento de busca de emprego)."
## [2112] "Subscales: Religious obsessive-compulsive symptoms."
## [2113] "Latent variables: Intrinsic motivation; Identified regulation; Introjected regulation; External regulation; Amotivation"
## [2114] "Subscales: Perceived group diversity; Cultural acceptance and expression; Culture utilization"
## [2115] "Variables: (a) Demographic characteristics and medical history of pregnant women; (b) Women’s knowledge about prenatal screening and diagnostic tests; (c) Women’s attitude about prenatal screening and diagnostic tests; and (d) Decision to undergo the amniocentesis test."
## [2116] "Factors: Distributive justice; Procedural justice; Interactional justice."
## [2117] "Factors: Environment-time; Motivation-emotion management."
## [2118] "Factors: Depth; Perseverance; Optimism; Linkage; Happiness."
## [2119] "Factors: Emotional Dimension; Physiological Dimension; Cognitive Dimension; Behavioral Dimension."
## [2120] "Factors: Disclosure; Self-censorship."
## [2121] "Factors: Creative Work Potential; Be My Own Boss."
## [2122] "Subscales: Information management (Define/access; Evaluate; Manage); Collaboration (Responsibilities; Planning; Interdependence; Knowledge sharing); Communication (Appropriateness/expressiveness; Content sharing; Contact building; Networking); Critical thinking (Refection; Justification; Novelty); Creativity; Problem-solving."
## [2123] "Scales: Self-perception; Object perception; Self-regulation; Object regulation; Communication (Internal); Communication (External); Binding Capacity to Internal Objects; Binding Capacity to External Objects"
## [2124] "Subscales: Competency and Autonomy; Perceived Need for Cooperation; and Perception of actual Cooperation."
## [2125] "Subscales: Team-working and collaboration; Professional identity; Professional roles."
## [2126] "Factors: Encouraging Interprofessional Interaction; Contextualizing Interprofessional Education."
## [2127] "Subscales: Objective Positive (OP); Subjective Negative (SN); Objective Negative (ON); Subjective Positive (SP)."
## [2128] "Factors: Early Academic Skills Scale (Creative Thinking; Critical Thinking Skills; Numeracy; Early Literacy; Comprehension); Early Academic Enablers Scale(Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Competence; Fine Motor Skills; Gross Motor Skills; Communication)."
## [2129] "Profiles: Intersectional Engaged (Cluster 1); Race Progressive (Cluster 2); Intersectional Aware (Cluster 3); Gender Expressive (Cluster 4)."
## [2130] "Dimensions: Inside Space; Outside Space; Variety of Stimulation; Gross-Motor Toys; Fine-Motor Toys."
## [2131] "Factors: Observation; Questioning; Goal setting; Developmental feedback; Motivational feedback."
## [2132] "Factors: Energy/Control; Thought/Emotional Avoidance; Threat; Pity"
## [2133] "Subscales: Lack of Controllability; Preparing for the Future; Expecting the Worst; Searching for Causes/Meaning; Dwelling on the Past; Thinking Discordant with Ideal Self."
## [2134] "Factors: Impulsiveness (Impulsividad); Self-harm (Autolesión); Risk behaviors (Comportamientos de riesgo); Suicidal ideation (Ideación Suicida). Subscales: Automatic reinforcement (Reforzamiento automático); Social reinforcement (Reforzamiento social)."
## [2135] "Subscales: Anger-in; Appeal for weapons; Suicidal ideation; Tendency to take justice into one’s own hands."
## [2136] "Factors: Religious Needs; Need for Inner Peace; Existentialistic Needs; Actively Giving."
## [2137] "Comfort Subscales: Physical; Spiritual; Environment; Social"
## [2138] "Subscales: Machiavellianism; Narcissism; Psychopathy."
## [2139] "Subscales: Minor Pain; Severe Pain; Medical Pain."
## [2140] "Scales: Rationality; Experientiality. Subscales: Imagination; Intuition; Emotionality."
## [2141] "Factors: (Feedback after success) General person feedback; Domain-specific person feedback; Effort feedback; Strategy feedback; (Feedback after failure) General person feedback; Domain-specific person feedback; Effort feedback; General strategy feedback; Constructive strategy feedback."
## [2142] "Factors: Presentation (SEPM-P); Moderation self-efficacy (SEPM-M)."
## [2143] "Factors: Body Concern; Thinness; Shortness; Facial Appearance."
## [2144] "Factors: Individual learning; Group learning; Organizational learning; Culture of organizational learning; Training; Strategic clarity."
## [2145] "Factors: Negative attitudes; Psychological Consequences"
## [2146] "Subscales: Consistency of Interests (CI); Perseverance of Effort (PE)"
## [2147] "Factors: Obstacles; HIV test; Condom use; People with AIDS."
## [2148] "Factors: Global School Engagement: Cognitive engagement; Behavioral engagement; Emotional engagement; Social engagement. School Disengagement: Cognitive disengagement; Behavioral disengagement; Emotional disengagement; Social disengagement."
## [2149] "Factors: Emotional Support; Positive Interactions; Coercive Power; Conditional Social Regard"
## [2150] "Values: Benevolence; Self-direction; Achievement; Universalism; Conformity; Tradition; Transcendent change; Stimulation; Security; Power; Hedonism"
## [2151] "Factor: Episodic future thinking specificity."
## [2152] "Factors: Depression symptoms; Nondepressive symptoms; Coping ability; Positive mental health; Function in tasks; Life satisfaction; General sense of well being."
## [2153] "Scales: Paranoid Personality Traits; Schizotypal Personality Traits; Borderline Personality Traits; Antisocial Personality Traits; Avoidant Personality Traits; Obsessive Compulsive Personality Traits; Anxiety; Depressive Mood; Bipolar; Somatization; Substance Abuse; Alcohol; Illicit Drugs; Naivete’; Inconsistency; Infrequency Scale."
## [2154] "Factors: Threat; Submissiveness; (Un)valued."
## [2155] "Factors: Submission; Threat; Devaluation."
## [2156] "Subscales: Cognitive; Informant."
## [2157] "Factors: Hedonic; Eudaimonic. Subscales: Pleasure; Avoid; Personal Meaning; Self-Reflection."
## [2158] "Factors: Intentions; Perceived Behavioral Control; Attitudes; Subjective Norms."
## [2159] "Factors: Knowledge and Workload; Resources."
## [2160] "Factors: Physical aggression; Verbal aggression; Anger."
## [2161] "Factors: Conflict; Closeness; Dependence; Dominance; Rivalry."
## [2162] "Factors: Symptoms; Quality; Dependency; Stigma; Hopelessness; Failure."
## [2163] "Factors: Characteristics of Mental Illness and Treatments; Assessment and Diagnosis Tools and Treatments; Causes and Risk Factors of Mental Illness; General Epidemiology of and Facts about Mental Health and Mental Illness."
## [2164] "Factors: [Empowering] Task Involvement; Support for Autonomy; Ego Involvement; [Disempowering] Social Support; Controlling Training."
## [2165] "Subscales: Task-involving climate; Ego-involving climate; Autonomy-supportive climate; Controlling climate; Socially-supportive climate"
## [2166] "Subscales: Alcohol; Gambling; Drugs; Smartphone; Internet; Videogames"
## [2167] "Factors: Negative emotion dysregulation; Positive emotionality. Subscales: Instability; Impulsivity; Negative emotionality; Positive emotionality."
## [2168] "Dimensions: Emotional Reactions; Judgments; Behavioral Reactions; Personal Consequences; Organizational Outcomes."
## [2169] "Factors: Benefit Perception; Risk Perception."
## [2170] "Subscales: Reasons for using SNSs; Dealing with SNSs; Awareness of using SNSs."
## [2171] "Subscales: Challenge; Control; Commitment."
## [2172] "Subscales: Sexual Shame; Sexual Pride."
## [2173] "Dimensions: Grandiosity; Vulnerability. Factors: Estime de soi contingente (Contemplative self-esteem); Fantaisies grandioses (Grandiose fantasies); Supériorité de droits (Superiority of rights); Dévalorisation (Depreciation); Dissimulation de soi (Self-concealment); Exploitation d’autrui (Exploitation of others); Autovalorisation par sacrifice de soi (Self-sacrifice by self-sacrifice)."
## [2174] "Factors: Local Community; Hotel Employees; Hotel Guests; Owners/Investors; Natural Environment"
## [2175] "Factors: Microskills; Dealing with difficult client behaviors; Cultural competence; Counseling Process."
## [2176] "Factors: Positive Attitudes; Negative Attitudes."
## [2177] "Subscales: Impulse; Self-Harm; Risk Behavior; Suicidal Ideation; Functions of NSSI. Factors: Automatic Reinforcement; Social Reinforcement."
## [2178] "Factors: Reward Probability; Environmental Suppressor."
## [2179] "Subscales: Thoughts of Escape (TOQS-E); Task-Irrelevant Thoughts (TOQS-I); Task-Related Worries (TOQS-W)."
## [2180] "Factors: Dynamic structural framework; Control of workplace decisions; Fluidity in information sharing."
## [2181] "Subscales: Autonomy support; Development support."
## [2182] "Subscales: Obstacles; HIV test; Condom use; People living with AIDS."
## [2183] "Subscales: Fit idealization (8 items); Fit overvaluation (8 items); Fit behavioral drive (4 items)."
## [2184] "Factors: Discrepancy; Importance; Weighted Discrepancy"
## [2185] "Factors (Subscales): Women (Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat; Internalization: Muscular; Internalization: General Attractiveness; Pressures: Peers; Pressures: Family; Pressures: Significant Others; Pressures: Media); Men (Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat; Internalization: Muscular; Internalization: General Attractiveness; Pressures: Family; Pressures: Media; Pressures: Peers; Pressures: Significant Others)."
## [2186] "Subscales: Power; Achievement; Hedonism; Stimulation; Self-direction; Universalism; Benevolence; Tradition; Conformity; Security."
## [2187] "Subscales: Perceptions and attitudes; Teaching for creativity; Self-efficacy; Barriers to creativity."
## [2188] "Factors: Awareness; Distraction; Disinhibition; Emotional response; External cues."
## [2189] "Subscales: Ethical Guidance; Fairness; Integrity; Power Sharing; Role Clarification; People Orientation; Sustainability."
## [2190] "Subscales: Instruction; Adapting Education to Individual Students’ Needs; Motivating Students; Keeping Discipline; Cooperating With Colleagues and Parents; Coping With Changes and Challenges."
## [2191] "Subscales: Danger posed by others; Travel delays; Aggression from others."
## [2192] "Subscales: Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs); Technological optimism; Use of technology in the car; Enjoyment of driving; Driving sociability."
## [2193] "Subscales: Instructional assistance; Career-related modeling; Verbal encouragement; Emotional support."
## [2194] "Subscales: Verification of diagnoses; Expression of symptoms; Medication; Consequences of illness; Scanning."
## [2195] "Subscales: Alertness; Habit; Mood; Social; Taste; Symptom Management."
## [2196] "Subscales: Verification of diagnoses; Expression of symptoms; Medication/Treatment; Illness Consequences; Body Scanning."
## [2197] "Subscales: Student–teacher relationships; Headmaster’s involvement in school life; Student–student relationships; School satisfaction; Achievement motivation; Student–form teacher relationship; Perceived safety."
## [2198] "Subscales: Positively-worded items; Negatively-worded items."
## [2199] "Coding Dimensions: Negative escalation; Dominance; Editing; Interactional synchrony."
## [2200] "Scales: Emotional Deprivation (Privación Emocional); Abandonment (Abandono); Imperfection(Imperfección); Mistrust (Desconfianza); Social Isolation (Aislamiento Social); Failure (Fracaso); Dependency (Dependencia); Vulnerability (Vulnerabilidad); Danger (Peligro); Attachment (Apego); Self-Sacrifice (Autosacrificio); Subjugation (Subyugación); Emotional Inhibition (Inhibición Emocional); Unattainable Goals (Metas inalcanzables); Insufficient Self-Control (Insuficiente Autocontrol); Grandiosity (Grandiosidad); Admiration/Search for Approval (Admiración/Búsqueda Aprobación); Pessimism (Pesimismo); Punishment (Castigo)."
## [2201] "Subscales: Process of decision-making; Physical and psychological burden of the kidney living donation; Evaluation of medical care in the context of kidney living donation; Return to work after the donation and subjective performance; Relationship between donor and recipient."
## [2202] "Subscales: Moral justification; Euphemistic labeling; Advantageous comparison; Displacement of responsibility; Diffusion of responsibility; Distorting consequences; Victim attribution"
## [2203] "Subscales: Self-awareness; Self-management and motivation; Social-awareness and prosocial behavior; Decision-making."
## [2204] "Subscales: Frequency-cognitive reappraisal; Frequency-expressive suppression; Efficacy-cognitive reappraisal; Efficacy-expressive suppression."
## [2205] "Subscales: Beliefs and practices; Social support."
## [2206] "Subscales: Other symptoms; Coping ability; Positive mental health; Functioning; Life satisfaction; General sense of well-being."
## [2207] "Factors: Hyper-Feminine Drag; Gender Fluid Drag."
## [2208] "Subscales: Course of Medication Treatment; Identity; Control."
## [2209] "Factors: Beliefs and practices; Social support."
## [2210] "Subscales: Commitment; Exploration in Amplitude; Ruminative Exploration; Identification with Commitment; Exploration in Depth."
## [2211] "Subscales: Social Integration; Social Acceptance; Social Contribution; Social Actualization; Social Coherence."
## [2212] "Subscales: Emotional Abuse; Physical Abuse; Sexual Abuse; Emotional Neglect; Physical Neglect"
## [2213] "Subscales: Social Modeling; Soothing; Enhancing Positive Affect; Perspective Taking."
## [2214] "Factors: Identity concerns; Treated differently; Blame and Judgement."
## [2215] "Subscales: Egoistic value orientation; Altruistic value orientation; Biospheric value orientation."
## [2216] "Factors: Autonomy Satisfaction; Autonomy Frustration; Relatedness Satisfaction; Relatedness Frustration; Competence Satisfaction; Competence Frustration."
## [2217] "Subscale: Attitude towards CT."
## [2218] "Subscales: Non-acceptance emotional reactions; Problems with goal-oriented behavior; Impulse control problems; Lack of emotional attention; Limited access to emotion regulation strategies; Lack of emotional clarity."
## [2219] "Factors: Positive beliefs about worries (Positive Überzeugungen über Sorgen); Beliefs about uncontrollability and danger (Überzeugungen über Unkontrollierbarkeit und Gefahr); Trust in memory (Vertrauen in das Gedächtnis); Assumptions about superstition, punishment and responsibility (Annahmen über Aberglaube, Strafe und Verantwortlichkeit); Cognitive self-awareness (Kognitive Selbstaufmerksamkeit)."
## [2220] "Subtests: Picture Analogies; Geometric Analogies; Picture Categories; Geometric Categories; Picture Sequences; Geometric Sequences."
## [2221] "Factors: Benefits of Work; Demands of the Worker Role; Motivation to Work."
## [2222] "Factors: difficulty identifying subjective feelings (DIF); difficulty describing feelings to others (DDF); externally oriented cognitive style (EOT)."
## [2223] "Subscales: Neurocognition/motivation; Social cognition/insight."
## [2224] "Subscales: Recognizing and anticipating day-to-day symptoms and challenges; Recognizing sudden/worrisome changes; Managing day-to-day symptoms and challenges; Managing sudden/worrisome changes, engaging health services, and advocating for the patient in health care situations; Understanding and managing care recipients’ medications; Practicing self-care."
## [2225] "Subscales: Annoyance/distraction by background noise; Importance of sound quality; Noise Sensitivity; Avoidance of unpredictable sounds; Openness towards loud/new sounds; Preferences for warm sounds; Details of environmental sounds/music."
## [2226] "Subscales: Think positive; Be involved; Do things; Get informed; Make plans."
## [2227] "Subscales: Experience of approach; Feeling of alienation."
## [2228] "Subscales: Comprehensive Pain Management Self-Efficacy; Evaluative Pain Management Self-Efficacy; Supplemental Pain Management Self-Efficacy."
## [2229] "Subscales: Auditory Processing (AP); Attention Control (ATT); Language (Lang)."
## [2230] "Subscales: Financial decision avoidance; Clothing decision avoidance; Food decision avoidance; Medical decision avoidance."
## [2231] "Subscales: Positive Attributes; Negative Attributes; Perfectionism Attributes."
## [2232] "Factors: Standards (Perfectionistic strivings); Discrepancy (Perfectionistic concerns)."
## [2233] "Scales: Prosthesis function: Usefulness; Residual limb health; Appearance; Sounds; Mobility: Ambulation; Transfers; Psychosocial experience: Perceived responses; Frustration; Social burden; Well-Being: Well-being."
## [2234] "Subscales: Self Performance and Love; Self-Collection and Approval Need; Social Approval."
## [2235] "Subscales: Degree of political knowledge; Feelings about politics; Intentions of political behavior."
## [2236] "Subscales: Favorable attitudes, Unfavorable attitudes, and Attitudes of mistrust."
## [2237] "Subscales: Intrapersonal; Interpersonal."
## [2238] "Subscales: Emotional value; Epistemic value; Health value; Prestige value; Taste/quality value; Price value; Interaction value."
## [2239] "Subscales: Environmental resource conservation efforts (ERC); Environmental policy and training (EPT); Environmental public relation efforts (EPR)."
## [2240] "Subscales: Self-criticism; Self-reinforcement; Self-management; Social assessment"
## [2241] "Subscales: Diabetes-related words; Numeracy and information utilization."
## [2242] "Subscales: Ethical; Self-Behave; Others-Behave."
## [2243] "Subscales: PrEP stigma; Positive attitudes."
## [2244] "Factors: D1 (related to visual presentation, labeling, refreshment, pH, sodium content, brand, quality, safety, and price); D2 (related to sparkling water preference, consumption, and safety)."
## [2245] "Subscales: Perceived risks; Perceived benefits; Chemophobia; Preference of natural foods; Influence of information on perception of MSG."
## [2246] "Subscales: Learning material; Modelling of caregiver; Fostering self-sufficiency; Regulatory activities; Family companionship."
## [2247] "Factors: Personal/Interpersonal (Osebna/medosebna); Study (Študijska); Performance (Izvedbena); Technical/Scientific (Tehnična/znanstvena); Artistic (Umetniška)."
## [2248] "Subscales: Suppression; Unregulated emotion; Signs of unprocessed emotions; Avoidance; Impoverished emotional experience."
## [2249] "Subscales: Skills; Social Influences; Emotion; Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Knowledge; Beliefs about Capabilities; Intentions; Reinforcement; Behavior Regulation; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Social/Professional Role and Identity; Goals; Optimism."
## [2250] "Subscales: Individuals' belief that the course of CVD can be changed for the better; Perceptions of self being at risk of CVD; Perception of benefits of CVD health checks; Perception of drawbacks of CVD health checks; Preferred method for CVD prevention; Individuals' readiness to know the results of CVD health checks; Individuals' readiness to handle the outcomes following CVD health checks; External barriers; Influence by significant others."
## [2251] "Subscales: Sensory abilities (SAB); Autonomy (AUT); Past, present, and future activities (PPF); Social participation (SOP); Death and dying (DAD); Intimacy (INT)."
## [2252] "Subscales: General Body Image Anxieties; Trans-Related Body Image Anxieties."
## [2253] "Subscales: Environmental idealized influence (EII); Environmental inspirational motivation (EIM); Environmental intellectual stimulation (EIS); Environmental individualized consideration (EIC)."
## [2254] "Subscales: Emotional regulation (ER); Self-concept (SC); Social context (SO)."
## [2255] "Factors: Happiness/Well-being; Awe/Sensuality; Disgust/Irritation; Soothing/Peacefulness; Energizing/Cooling; Sensory/Pleasure"
## [2256] "Subscales: Patient admission; Organization and management of work; Allocation of staff; Allocation of material; Special treatments; Patient discharge."
## [2257] "Subscales: The illness and strategies for care; Attitudes and actions toward the care recipient; Attitudes and actions toward the caregiver."
## [2258] "Subscales: Negative beliefs; Positive beliefs; Idleness; Weight control; Family issues."
## [2259] "Factors: Neuroticism; Absorption; Orderliness; Extraversion; Insensitivity."
## [2260] "Subscales: Affect; Cognitive competence; Value; Difficulty; Interest; Effort."
## [2261] "Subscales: Violations of traffic rules/speeding; Reckless driving/funriding; Not using seatbelts; Cautious and watchful driving; Drinking and driving; Attentiveness towards children in traffic; Driving below speed limits."
## [2262] "Praise and Kindness; Respect for Others; Forgiveness; Social Responsiveness; Social Inclusiveness."
## [2263] "Subscales: Incendiary Communication; Affirmative Communication."
## [2264] "Subscales: Sluggishness; Daydreaming."
## [2265] "Subscales: Validity; Purpose; Disillusionment; Parents; Professors; Students"
## [2266] "Factors: Bonding Capital; Bridging Capital."
## [2267] "Subscales: Disorganization/Punitive; Mutual Hostility; Affective Caregiving; Appropriate Boundaries; Disorganization; Punitive."
## [2268] "Subscales: Physical; Emotional."
## [2269] "Factors: Functional; Communicative; Critical."
## [2270] "Factors: Stress of romantic relationships; Stress of getting along with others; Stress of academic future uncertainty; Stress of school/leisure conflict; Stress of daily life; Stress of parental authority and emerging autonomy."
## [2271] "Subscales: Physical activity; Risk reduction; Stress management; Enjoyment of life; Health responsibility; Healthy diet."
## [2272] "Subscales: Difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing them from the bodily sensations of emotions (DIF); Difficulty describing feelings to others (DDF); Externally oriented cognitive style of thinking (EOT)."
## [2273] "Subscales: Hypoactive; Hyperactive; Mixed; No motor."
## [2274] "Subscales: Reliability; Intelligibility; Affect."
## [2275] "Subscales: Feelings; Preparation; Disruption."
## [2276] "Subscales: Perceived Benefits of Intrusive Behavior; Perceived Immediate Benefits of Protective Behavior; Perceived Broad Benefits of Protective Behavior."
## [2277] "Factors: Religious beliefs; Existential beliefs; Environmental quality of life; Psychosocial issues; Physical health."
## [2278] "Factors: Information processing speed; Memory; Visuospatial perception; Motor control."
## [2279] "Subscales: Separation anxiety disorder (SAD); Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); Panic disorder (PD); Social phobia (SP); Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); Major depressive disorder (MDD)."
## [2280] "Subscales: Awareness of Transgender and Intersex People Scale; Transgender Intersex Advocacy Activity Scale"
## [2281] "Factors: Cognitive Jealously; Emotional Jealousy; Behavioral Jealousy."
## [2282] "Subscales: Mobility; Activities of daily living (ADL); Eating and drinking; Communication; Emotional functioning."
## [2283] "Factors: Psychological Consequences; Physical Consequences; Personal/Interpersonal Consequences; Physical Dependence; Psychological Dependence"
## [2284] "Domains: Emotion; Nurturance; Safety; Discipline; Play; Teaching; Routines."
## [2285] "Subscales: Family functioning; Family health; Social support. Factors: Family relationships; Family strength; Family activities; Values; Knowledge; Ill-being; Activities; Well-being; Affirmation; Interactions; Concrete aids."
## [2286] "Factors: Attitudes; Rumination."
## [2287] "Factors: Concerns; Benefits; Product Aspects; Social Aspects; Ownership Aspects."
## [2288] "Scales: Customer loyalty; Sharing benefit; Symbiotic benefit; Special treatment benefit (economic); Confidence benefit; Identity‐related benefit. Factors: Loyalty; Satisfaction; Commitment (Customer loyalty)."
## [2289] "Subscales: General problem; Obsession; Neglect and control disorder."
## [2290] "Subscales: Intrusion; Avoidance-arousal."
## [2291] "Subscales: Desire to use substance; Intention to use; Anticipation positive outcome; Anticipation relief dysphoria; Lack of control."
## [2292] "Subscales: Negative Appearance-Related Commentary; Positive Appearance-Related Commentary"
## [2293] "Subscales: TFL-enhancing staffing; TFL-enhancing training; TFL-enhancing performance appraisal; TFL-enhancing pay; Broad job design; Information sharing."
## [2294] "Subscales: Frequency; Severity; Disturbance. Factors: Psychomotor behavior; Affective symptoms; Psychosis; Sleep disorders; Eating disorders."
## [2295] "Factors: Misconceptions; Social affective symptoms; Intervention; Etiology and performance; Related conditions and features; Self-efficacy in ASD clinical skills; Available resources; Need for ASD training; Communicating with parents about their ASD concerns (Communicating with parents)."
## [2296] "Subscales: Communication self-efficacy and normative beliefs; Communication attitudes."
## [2297] "Subscales: Individual level; Team level; Organizational level."
## [2298] "Subscales: Self-care ability to perform ADLs; Self-care ability to achieve well-being; Self-care ability to set personal goals."
## [2299] "Subscales: Interest/aptitude; Alternate preferences."
## [2300] "Subscales: Positive; Negative."
## [2301] "Subscales: Desire to use cocaine; Intention and planning to use cocaine; Anticipation of positive outcome; Anticipation of relief from withdrawal or dysphoria; Lack of control over use."
## [2302] "Factors: Mother Helpless; Mother and Child Frightened; Child Caregiving"
## [2303] "Subscales: Speech characteristics of the word (SC); Situational difficulty (SD); Compensatory strategies (CS); Perceived reaction of others (PR)."
## [2304] "Subscales: Establishing relationships; Acculturation to the company; Job knowledge."
## [2305] "Subscales: Mobility; Activities of daily living (ADL); Eating and drinking; Communication; Emotional functioning."
## [2306] "Factors: Rigid perfectionism; Self-critical perfectionism; Narcissistic perfectionism."
## [2307] "Factors: Academic; Self-Regulatory; Approval-Seeking."
## [2308] "Factors: Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS); Disinhibition (DIS); Experience Seeking (ES); Boredom Susceptibility (BS)."
## [2309] "Factors: Reliability: Emotional; Honesty."
## [2310] "Factors: Q‐Factor 1 - Submissive Depression; Q‐Factor 2 - Self‐Critical Depression; Q‐Factor 3 - Dismissive Depression; Q‐Factor 4 - Needy Depression."
## [2311] "Dimensions (Scales): Surgency/Extraversion (Vocal reactivity; Perceptual sensitivity; Approach; Activity level; Smiling and laughter); Negative Affectivity (Fear; Distress to limitation; Falling reactivity; Sadness); Orienting Regulation (Duration of orienting; Soothability; Low-intensity pleasure)."
## [2312] "Factors: Prosociality; Anxiety; Depression; ADHD; Aggression."
## [2313] "Factors: Positive feelings; Negative feelings."
## [2314] "Factors: Emotional problems; Academic problems; Substance use problems; Physical health problems."
## [2315] "Factors: Ability; Determination; Preparation; Unity."
## [2316] "Factors: SDO-Dominance (SDO-D); SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism (SDO-E)."
## [2317] "Factors: Overall vision and commitment; Collaborative approach; Empowered representatives; Facilitation and support for participation; Workforce development and readiness; Impact on programs and policies; Role in program evaluation; Leading initiatives and projects."
## [2318] "Subscales: Openness of Seeking Treatment for Emotional Problems; Value and Need in Seeking Treatment."
## [2319] "Subscales: Style longevity; Aesthetic perceptual ability; Creativity; Appearance importance; Authenticity."
## [2320] "Subscales: Logistics and Operations; Goals and Development; Coaching; Team and Culture; Selection."
## [2321] "Subscales: Female-Typical Behavior; Male-Typical Behavior; Cross-Gender."
## [2322] "Subscales: Support and Empowerment of Youth; Attachment to the Neighborhood; Security; Social Control; Availability of Youth Activities."
## [2323] "Factors: Worry about Calamitous Events; Fear of Being Alone; Fear of Abandonment; Fear of Physical Illness."
## [2324] "Subscales: Worries; Specific fears; Physiological symptoms."
## [2325] "Subscales: Physical Activity; Excitement; Aesthetic Appreciation; Peacefulness; Togetherness; Spiritual Engagement; Attention; Fascination; Privilege; Compassion; Reflective engagement; Connection; Autonomy; Personal Growth; Tension."
## [2326] "Subscales: Unemotional; Callousness; Uncaring; Antisocial Behavior."
## [2327] "Subscales: Presence; Openness; Calmness."
## [2328] "Subscales: SBS-Behaviour; SBS-Belief."
## [2329] "Subscales: Gestures/requests (A); Gestures/ directing attention (B); Words/types of words (C); Words/requests for help (D); Sentences/directing attention (F); Sentences/comments about things (G); Sentences/comments about self and others (H); Sentences/activities with others (I); Sentences/teasing and sense of humor (J); Sentences/interest in words and language (K); Sentences/adapting conversation (M); Sentences/longer sentences and stories (N)."
## [2330] "Subscales: Leadership Program Management and Evaluation (LPME); Indirect Services with Parents and Teachers (ISPT); Individual and Group Counseling with Students (IGCS); Prevention Work (PW); College and Career Counseling with Students (CCCS); Administrator Role (AR); Individual Works with Students (IWS); Group Work with Students (GWS)."
## [2331] "Factors: Regulation of Task Value; Regulation of Performance Goals; Self-Consequences; Environmental Structuring; Regulation of Situational Interest."
## [2332] "Factors: Night/inertia; Day/performances."
## [2333] "Subscales: Hope; Social learning; Attachment to art therapist; Relationship-related influence; Interpersonal learning; Group cohesion."
## [2334] "Subscales: Guilt; Shame."
## [2335] "Factors: Motivation; Cognition; Meta-cognition; Behavior."
## [2336] "Factors: Participation of School Decisions and Rules (Participación de las Decisiones y Normas escolares); Participation in School Events (Participación en los Eventos Escolares); Participation in School Activities (extra-academic) (Participación en las Actividades Escolares (extra-académicas)); Positive Perception of Participation (Percepción Positiva de la participación)."
## [2337] "Subscales: Participation in school decisions and rules; Participation in school activities; Participation in school events; Positive perception of school participation."
## [2338] "Subscales: Perceived Content Validity and Opportunity to Use; Negative Personal Results; Resistance/Openness to Change; Sanctions of the Supervisor; Positive Personal Results; Motivation to Transfer; Apprentice Readiness; Transfer Effort - Performance Expectation and Performance Self-Effectiveness; Performance Orientation; Colleague and Supervisor Support; Personal Ability to Transfer; Performance and Results Expectation."
## [2339] "Subscales: Recognition Expectations (REX); Vulnerable Self (VS); Self Sacrificing (SS); Approval Seeking (AS); Grandiose Self (GS); Grandiose Fantasy (GF)."
## [2340] "Subscales: Salience-tolerance; Mood modification; Withdrawal; Conflict; Relapse."
## [2341] "Subscales: Altruism; Sportsmanship; Civic virtue; Conscientiousness; Courtesy."
## [2342] "Subscales: Self-awareness; Authenticity; Community; Intimacy; Social justice."
## [2343] "Subscales: Set goals; Intensity; Persistence."
## [2344] "Subscales: Internal Stressors; External Stressors."
## [2345] "Subscales: Generally positive evaluation; Generally negative evaluation; Evaluation towards other children."
## [2346] "Factors: External; Introjected; Autonomous."
## [2347] "Factors: Self-perception of body shape; Comparative perception of body image; Attitude concerning body image alteration; Severe alterations in body perception."
## [2348] "Factors: Fending Off the Problem; Negative Consequences; Negative Self-Efficacy; Positive Consequences; Habit, Pattern; Waiting"
## [2349] "Factors: Competences in sustainable development from a societal perspective (KSD); Competences in business administration (KBA); Knowledge of sustainability management (KSM); Schematic and strategic knowledge of sustainability management (SSKSM)."
## [2350] "Factors: Positive Interaction; Conflicts."
## [2351] "Scales: Social-contextual; Practical-Functional."
## [2352] "Subscales: Hopeful view (HV); Fearful view (FV)."
## [2353] "Subscales: Workplace incivility; In-role job performance; Innovative job performance; Expected image gains; Expected image risks."
## [2354] "Domains: Transportation; Daydreaming; Thinking styles; Fantasies; Dreams; Imaginative responsiveness; Imaginary friends."
## [2355] "Factors: Low coping efficacy; Negative self-beliefs; Perfectionism."
## [2356] "Factors: Personal growth goals; Instrumental goals; Companionship goals."
## [2357] "Factors: Positive thinking (PT); Social sensitization and support (SSS); Adaptation (AD); Avoidance (AV)."
## [2358] "Factors: Leverage; Energize; Adapt; Defend."
## [2359] "Subscales: Perception of self; Planned future; Social competence; Structured style; Family cohesion; Social resources."
## [2360] "Factors: Management commitment; Supervisor support."
## [2361] "Subscales: Self-connection; Commitment; Intimacy-loyalty; Passion."
## [2362] "Subscales: Thinking disorders; Perception disorders; Unusual experiences."
## [2363] "Subscales: General fear avoidance; Types of activities that are avoided."
## [2364] "Subscales: Knowledge and Attitudes; Behaviors."
## [2365] "Subscales: Professional influences on family focused practice; Organisational influences on family focused practice."
## [2366] "Subscales: Structural issues; Social issues."
## [2367] "Subscales: Self-esteem; Self-efficacy; Locus of control; Risk preferences; Competitiveness."
## [2368] "Subscales: Teamwork-Collaboration (T&C); Professional-Identity (ProID ±); Roles-Responsibilities (R&R)."
## [2369] "Factors: Modality; Agency; Interactivity; Navigability. Subfactors: Realism; Agency-enhancement; Browsing Being there; Community building; Activity; Play; Bandwagon; Responsiveness; Filtering; Interaction."
## [2370] "Subscales: Attitude; Intention; Action."
## [2371] "Factors: Physical; Appearance; Emotions; Cognition; Relationships."
## [2372] "Factors: Personalized stigma/disclosure; Negative self-image; Public attitudes."
## [2373] "Subscales: Personalized stigma; Disclosure; Negative self-image; Public attitudes."
## [2374] "Factors: Perceived Behavior; Perceived Benefit; Perceived Burden."
## [2375] "Factors: Mobility, non-motor manifestations and disability; Neuropsychological disorders; motor complications of treatment; Other complications; Parkinsonian motor signs."
## [2376] "Subscales: Own capacity; Professional support; Perceived safety; Participation."
## [2377] "Subscales: Task interference; Psychological; Physical function."
## [2378] "Factors: Withdrawal Symptoms; Salience; Social Comfort; Mood Changes."
## [2379] "Subscales: \"Rightness’’ of relationship experience; Love for partner; Being loved by partner."
## [2380] "Factors: Technical system quality; Information quality; Service quality; Educational system quality; Support system quality; Learner quality; Instructor quality; Perceived satisfaction; Perceived usefulness; System use; Benefits."
## [2381] "Factors: Decision-making style; Need for gratification; Perceived ease of use; Usefulness of m-payment; Intention to adoption."
## [2382] "Subscales: Perceive and understanding emotion (PU); Express and label emotion (EL); Manage and regulate emotion (MR)."
## [2383] "Subscales: Family Strengths (FS); Family Communication (FC); Family Difficulties (FD)"
## [2384] "Subscales: Food refusal; Oral sensory and motor feeding problems; Picky eating; Disruptive mealtime behaviours."
## [2385] "Factors: Social; Coping; Reward Enhancement; Conformity."
## [2386] "Factors: Habit formed; Loss of tracking feasibility/necessity; Design/discomfort; Motivation loss; Privacy concerns/switch to alternative; Data inaccuracy/uselessness."
## [2387] "Factors: Joyous Exploration; Deprivation Sensitivity; Stress Tolerance; Thrill Seeking; Social Curiosity."
## [2388] "Subscales: Positive Clinician Input and Collaboration; Non-supportive Clinician Input."
## [2389] "Subscales: Knowledge Confidence before and after training; Practice Confidence before and after training; Perceived Barriers to Eye Care before and after training."
## [2390] "Subscales: Social awareness; Social cognition; Social communication; Social motivation; Autistic mannerisms designating repetitive behaviors and restricted interests."
## [2391] "Subscales: Physical exhaustion; Cognitive weariness; Emotional exhaustion."
## [2392] "Subscales: How to identify vulvodynia; Treatments for vulvodynia; Significance of encountering patients; Significance of providing information and support to patients."
## [2393] "Subscales: Illusion of Control (IOC); Perceived Gambling Skill (PGS); Inability to Stop Gambling (ISG); Benefits of Gambling (BoG)."
## [2394] "Factors: Peer connection; School connection; Family connection."
## [2395] "Factors: Need supportive behaviors; Need thwarting behaviors; Need indifferent behaviors."
## [2396] "Factors: Compulsive urgency (Urgencia Compulsiva); Impulsivity by unpredicatability (Impulsividad por Imprevisión); Sensation seeking (Búsqueda de Sensaciones)."
## [2397] "Factors: Externalization of aggression (adult version) and Experience evaluation (children’s version); Appropriate coping strategies; Pessimism; Paralysis."
## [2398] "Subscales: Betrayal; Guilt; Shame; Moral concerns; Loss of trust; Loss of meaning; Difficulty forgiving; Self-condemnation; Religious struggle; Loss of religious faith."
## [2399] "Subscales: Betrayal; Guilt; Shame; Moral Concerns; Religious Struggles; Loss of Religious Faith/Hope; Loss of Meaning/Purpose; Difficulty Forgiving; Loss of Trust; Self-condemnation."
## [2400] "Subscales: Dyadic strain; Positive dyadic interaction"
## [2401] "Subscales: Behavioral intention; Self-efficacy; Normative support; Behavior."
## [2402] "Factors: Functional Health Literacy; Communicative Health Literacy; Critical Health Literacy."
## [2403] "Factors: Student Cohesiveness (SC); Teacher Support (TS); Involvement (IVO); Investigation (INV); Task Orientation (TO); Cooperation (CO); Equity (EQ)."
## [2404] "Subscales: Motivation; Learning strategies. Factors: Intrinsic motivation; Achievement motivation; Synthesized knowledge and nursing skills; Multidimensional thinking; Effort control."
## [2405] "Subscales: Self-focus/Maximum; Self-focus/Minimum; Other-focus/Maximum; Other-focus/Minimum."
## [2406] "Subscales: Depressive; Cyclothymic; Hyperthymic; Irritable; Anxious."
## [2407] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Conscientiousness; Agreeableness."
## [2408] "Subscales: Price fairness; Organic food satisfaction; Trust in organic food; Purchase intentions towards organic food."
## [2409] "Subscales: Physical fatigue; Low energy; Mental fatigue."
## [2410] "Factors: Preparation; Raise Awareness; Avoidance; Enjoyable Activity; Group Attachment; Secrecy; Self-Reliance; Distancing; Rumination; Resignation; Blame"
## [2411] "Scales: Emotional support; Instrumental support; Informational support."
## [2412] "Subscales: Subjective conformity; Self-confidence; Attention seeking; Mood modification; Environmental enhancement; Social competition."
## [2413] "Subscales: Preference for Affect; Need for Cognition; Approach Behaviors; Assortment Similarity; Intimacy."
## [2414] "Factors: Activity Engagement; Pain Willingness."
## [2415] "Subscales: Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Negative affect; Positive Affect); Self‐congruity; Product quality (Cross‐category assortment; Within‐category assortment); Purchase intention."
## [2416] "Subscales: Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Negative affect; Positive Affect); Self‐congruity; Brand perceived quality; Store attitude."
## [2417] "Subscales: Exploration Subscale (MGEC-E); Commitment Subscale (MGEC-C); Synthesis/Integration Subscale (MGEC-S); Gender Uncertainty Subscale (MGEC-G)."
## [2418] "Subscales: Skills (ICCS-S); Knowledge and Beliefs (ICCS-KB)."
## [2419] "Factors: Value; Knowledge; Implementation."
## [2420] "Subscales: Physical Needs; Psychological Needs; Respect/Self-Esteem; Information; Rehabilitation."
## [2421] "Subscales: Self-directed moral injury; Other directed moral injury."
## [2422] "Subscales: Obsessional depersonalization/derealization; Obsessional absorption; Obsessional amnesia."
## [2423] "Subscales: Feminist action; Protective action."
## [2424] "Subscales: Adherence to medication; Healthy lifestyle; Cooperation; Responsibility; Support from next of kin; Sense of normality; Motivation; Results of care; Support from nurses; Support from physicians; Fear of complications."
## [2425] "Subscales: Career Aspirations; Leadership Ability; Leadership likelihood; Characteristics of Leadership (Negative characteristics; Positive characteristics)."
## [2426] "Scales: General Health Status; Lung; Medication; Skin; Eyes."
## [2427] "Disciplines: Chemistry; Physics; Interdisciplinary Science; Pharmacy; Psychology; Sports Rehabilitation. Primary/Secondary Codes/Themes (with different disciplines using different combinations of codes): Identifying the information needed (IIN±); Approximation and estimations (A&E±); Algorithms (ALG±); Evaluation (EVA±); Identifying and framing the problem (IPF±); Developing a strategy (DAS±); Not distracted by the details (NDIS±); Logical and scientific approach (LSA±); Confident and no confusion (CC+/CCP–/CCA–)"
## [2428] "Subscales: Self-Efficacy in Promoting EfS; Attitudes towards the Environment and Society; Declared Behaviour towards the Environment; Sustainability Course Contribution."
## [2429] "Factors: Intrinsic motivation; Integrated regulation; Identified regulation; Introjected regulation; External regulation; Amotivation."
## [2430] "Subscales: Demands; No joy; Tension; Worries."
## [2431] "Subscales: Effect evaluation measures; Process evaluation measures."
## [2432] "Subscales: Valued Action; Willingness."
## [2433] "Subscales: Communication; Capacity."
## [2434] "Factors: Tolerance; Intolerance."
## [2435] "Factors: Collaboration; Curiosity; Creativity."
## [2436] "Subscales: Positive feelings (SPANE-P); Negative feelings (SPANE-N)"
## [2437] "Factors: Soldiering; Cyberslacking."
## [2438] "Factors: Food Safety Beliefs; Light Product Interest; Food Taste Beliefs; Food Freshness Beliefs; General Health Interest"
## [2439] "Willingness; Trust; Pickiness."
## [2440] "Factors: Supervisory support for the environment (PSS-E); Trust in manager; Employee environmental commitment; Non-green behavior. Subscales: Non-relational behaviors; Social nature (Non-green behavior)."
## [2441] "Subscales: Employees; Shareholders; Banks; Insurance companies; Clients; Suppliers; Service providers; Competitors; Media; Nongovernmental organizations; Education and research centers; Governments; International organizations."
## [2442] "Subscales: Moral characteristics; Moral cognition; Moral role modeling; Establish moral context."
## [2443] "Factors: Assumption of Inferiority; Religious Stereotyping; Assumption of Non-Religiosity."
## [2444] "Factors: Verbal communication; Gestures. Subscales: Imperative gestures; Declarative gestures; Types of words; Requests for help; Verbal declaratives; Questions/comments - Things; Questions/comments - People; Words in activities with people; Teasing/sense of humor; Interest in words and language; Adapting conversation; Building sentences/stories."
## [2445] "Factors: Enrichment individual; Ethics community; Enrichment group; Experience outcomes; Ethics self; Expression verbal; Expression nonverbal; Experience process."
## [2446] "Factors: Right to safety; Right to be informed; Right to be heard; Right to choose; Right to privacy; Right to redress."
## [2447] "Factors: Counselling and resolving of ethical issues; Compliance with group norms; Ethics education through collective discussion."
## [2448] "Subscales: Perceived business pressure; Perceived social pressure; Managerial focus on PES."
## [2449] "Subscales: Affiliative Proximity-seeking; Support-seeking Behaviours; Attachment Bond."
## [2450] "Subscales: Negative-activation subscale; Negative-intensity subscale; Negative-duration subscale; Positive-activation subscale; Positive-intensity subscale; Positive-duration subscale."
## [2451] "Subscales: Verbal Proficiency; Aural Proficiency; Written Proficiency; Cultural Competence."
## [2452] "Subscales: Student Cohesiveness; Teacher Support; Equity; Task Clarity; Responsibility for Learning; Involvement; Task Orientation; Personal Relevance; Collaboration."
## [2453] "Subscales: Altered time perception; Self-diminishment; Connectedness; Perceived vastness; Physical sensations; Need for accommodation."
## [2454] "Skills: education and informing; motivating; treatment statements; commitment and goals; negotiates plan; non-emotion patient-centered skills; patient-centered emotional skills."
## [2455] "Factors: External visual imagery (EVI); Internal visual imagery (IVI); Kinaesthetic imagery (KIN)."
## [2456] "Subscales: Authoritarian Submission; Authoritarian Aggression; Conventionalism"
## [2457] "Factors: Primary care provider access; Digital health information seeking; Health behavior changes; Physical health behaviors; Dietary health behaviors; Mental well-being; Overall physical health."
## [2458] "Subscales: Distress; Withdrawal; Reduced attendance; Degradations in performance; Extreme behaviors."
## [2459] "Subscales: Gratitude for a Supportive Work Environment; Gratitude for Meaningful Work."
## [2460] "Subscales: Values; Social relations; Strengths"
## [2461] "Subscales: Inadequate self; Hated self; Reassured self."
## [2462] "Factors: Understanding of the research; Trust and confidence; Doubt and uncertainty."
## [2463] "Factors: Communication Skills for Emotional Support; Confidentiality of Patient Information; Patient Care Needs Promptly; Respect for Patient’s Autonomy; Safe Environment for the Patient; Protect the Patient’s Well-Being."
## [2464] "Subscales: Health choices; Rights; Duties; Responsibilities."
## [2465] "Subscales: Compassion and true presence; Moral responsibility; Moral integrity; Commitment to good care"
## [2466] "Factors: Organizational commitment; Commitment to career; Involvement with work; Commitment to the union."
## [2467] "Factors: Organizational image and a non-competitive work environment; People-oriented organization; High participation in management and a less formal work environment; Structure and security that minimizes work setting change and ambiguity"
## [2468] "Subscales: Human capital management; Managerial cognition; Relationship networks."
## [2469] "Factors: Symptoms and Functioning; Preparation for Death; Spiritual Activities; Acceptance of Dying."
## [2470] "Bundles (Factors): Performance-enhancement practices (Training and development; Contingent pay and rewards/competitive salary; Performance appraisal/Recruitment and selection; Employee-support practices (Employment security; Work-life balance; Exit management)."
## [2471] "Subscales: Environmental concerns; Environmental beliefs; Outcome expectancy; Perceived value of money; Attitude; Subjective norms; Perceived behavioural control; Personal norms; High self-determination motivations; Low self-determination motivations; Intention; Actual behavior; Action planning; Coping planning."
## [2472] "Subscales: Blend Acceptance; Blend Assessment; Food Knowledge; Food Involvement; Cooking Habits; Food Innovativeness; Healthy Eating."
## [2473] "Factors: Pleasure/displeasure; Arousal/sleepiness. Subscales: Positive/Pleasant emotions; Negative/Unpleasant emotions; Involvement; Satisfaction; Loyalty."
## [2474] "Subscales: Disgust (EAQ-D); Interest (EAQ-I); Feeding animals (EAQ-F)."
## [2475] "Factors: Bladder/bowel related preoccupation; Bladder/bowel-related concern."
## [2476] "Factors: Empathy; Openness to Spirituality; Wellness."
## [2477] "Subscales: Simplification; Regulation; Verification."
## [2478] "Subscales: Symptoms; Activity; Impacts."
## [2479] "Subscales: Focus on own emotions and relief of stress symptoms; Focus on calming the situation and avoiding problems; Focus on active problem solving."
## [2480] "Factors: Self-doubt; Ignored bully; Indirect or passive; Problem solving."
## [2481] "Factors: Relational Transparency; Internalized Moral; Balanced Processing; Self-Awareness."
## [2482] "Subscales: Violations; Aggressions; Lapses."
## [2483] "Factors: Time Perspective (TP); Agency Beliefs (AB); Openness to Alternatives (OP); Systems Perception (SP); Concern for Others (CO)."
## [2484] "Subscales: Desire to love and denial; Hate and being closed; Rejection feeling."
## [2485] "Subscales: Lack of affection (LA); Anger and rejection (AR)."
## [2486] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation; Identified regulation; Introjected regulation; External regulation; Amotivation."
## [2487] "Subscales: Thoughts; Autonomic Reactions; Off-Task Behaviors; Social Derogation."
## [2488] "Subscales: Act with Awareness; Describe; Nonjudge; Nonreact; Observe."
## [2489] "Factors: Significant others; Family; Friends."
## [2490] "Factors: Novelty Seeking; Novelty Producing; Engagement."
## [2491] "Factors: Rejection of perpetrators of sexual violence; Sick people"
## [2492] "Factors: Core self-management; Condition knowledge; Symptom monitoring."
## [2493] "Factors: Knowledge; Coping; Management of condition; Adherence to treatment."
## [2494] "Subscales: Satisfaction; Perceived food variety; Facility aesthetics."
## [2495] "Factors: Personal impairment; Social impairment; Cognitive impairment."
## [2496] "Subscales: Physical Environment; Teacher-Student Interactions; Peer Relationships; Teacher's Orientation towards Learning."
## [2497] "Factors: nature and security; normative aspects; financial aspects related to informal work."
## [2498] "Factors: Trying hard to learn English (THLE); Practicing a lot in order to learn English (PLE); Having goal for learning English (HGLE); Having interest in learning English (ILE)"
## [2499] "Factors: Deterioration in Personal Life; Incompetence; Negative Work Environment; Exhaustion."
## [2500] "Sub-Domains: Self-determination (SD); Rights (RI); Emotional wellbeing (EMO); Social inclusion (INCL); Personal development (DEV); Interpersonal relationships (RE); Material wellbeing (MAT); Physical wellbeing (PHY)."
## [2501] "Factors: Proactive and persevering characteristics; Nursing professional identity; Passion."
## [2502] "Schema Factors: Abandonment/instability; Mistrust/abuse; Emotional deprivation; Defectiveness/shame; Social isolation/alienation; Dependence/incompetence; Vulnerability to harm or illness; Enmeshment/undeveloped; Failure; Entitlement/grandiosity; Insufficient self-control and/or self-discipline; Subjugation; Self-sacrifice; Approval-seeking/recognition seeking; Negativity/pessimism; Emotional inhibition; Unrelenting standards/ hyper-criticalness; Punitiveness"
## [2503] "General Factor: Decent Work. Subscales: Safe working conditions; Access to healthcare; Adequate compensation; Free time and rest; Complementary values."
## [2504] "Subscales: Realistic type; Investigative-humanities type; Investigative-science type; Artistic type; Social type; Enterprising type; Conventional type"
## [2505] "Factors: Planning-Preparation; Avoidance; Spiritual-Positive Coping"
## [2506] "Factors: Self-devaluation; Fear of enacted stigma."
## [2507] "Factors: Loss of sex drive; Worsening of body image; Psychological coping; Discomfort during intercourse; Satisfaction with sexual relations; Satisfaction with breast reconstruction."
## [2508] "Factors: Anger; Anxiety; Boredom; Enjoyment; Hope; Hopelessness; Pride; Shame; Relief."
## [2509] "First-order Factors: Moral justification; Euphemistic labeling; Advantageous comparison; Displacement of responsibility; Diffusion of responsibility; Distortion of consequences. Second-order Factor: Doping MD"
## [2510] "Categories: Lack of readiness; Lack of information; Inconsistent information. Scales: Lack of readiness; Lack of motivation; General indecisiveness; Dysfunctional beliefs; Lack of information; Lack of knowledge about the process; Lack of information about self; Lack of information about occupations; Lack of information about ways of obtaining additional information."
## [2511] "Factors: Harm; Fairness; Ingroup; Authority; Purity."
## [2512] "Factors: Physically and Interpersonally Safe Working Conditions; Access to Health Care; Adequate Compensation; Hours that Allow for Free Time and Rest; Organizational Values Complement Family and Social Values."
## [2513] "Subscales: Vestibular; Autonomic-Anxiety."
## [2514] "Factors: Misperceptions about depression and its treatment; Knowledge of depression; Knowledge of treatment."
## [2515] "Factors: Academic Support; Intimacy; Warmth."
## [2516] "Factors: Personal and Interpersonal functioning; Environment; Behavior and Burden of care; Cognitive function; Somatic problems; Anxiety-Depression symptoms; Psychotic symptoms; Other psychiatric symptoms."
## [2517] "Factors: Role restrictive; Role preventive; Emotion function."
## [2518] "Factors: Intention; Attitude; Hedonic eating value; Utilitarian eating value; Injunctive norm; Descriptive norm; Perceived control over behavior; Self-efficacy Consumption of functional foods (single item)."
## [2519] "Factors: Cognitive empathy; Affective empathy; Sympathy."
## [2520] "Factors: Thought and emotion regulation; Attention regulation."
## [2521] "Bifactor Subscales: Real Communication Skills (RCS); Electronic Communication Skills (ECS). Factors: Sociability; Self-disclosure; Emotion decoding; Assertiveness."
## [2522] "Factors: Discrimination; Prejudice; Stereotypes."
## [2523] "Factors: Coping with cancer-related side effects; Maintaining activity and independence; Seeking and understanding medical information; Affect regulation and seeking social support."
## [2524] "Factors: Positive Cues to Action; Negative Cues to Action."
## [2525] "Factors: Salience; Mood modification; Tolerance; Withdrawal; Conflict; Relapse."
## [2526] "Domains: Physical; Social; Emotional."
## [2527] "Subscales: Contact with Diversity (CD); Multicultural Ideology (MI); Multicultural Policies and Practices (MPP)."
## [2528] "Factors: Behavioral self-disgust; Physical appearance self-disgust."
## [2529] "Factors: Positive feelings (Spane-P); Negative feelings (Spane-N)."
## [2530] "Factors: Minimization of Antibiotics and Trust in Physician Recommendations (MATPR); Avoidance of Antibiotics for Viral Infections (AAVI); Avoidance of Taking Old/Others’ Antibiotics (ATOA)."
## [2531] "Factors: Transient Violations; Mood Driving; Speeding; Fatigue; Distracted Driving; Seatbelt Usage; Close Following."
## [2532] "Factors: Math; Language; Attention; Executive function; Working memory; Sequential processing."
## [2533] "Factors: Physical presence; Social presence; Absorption."
## [2534] "Subscales: Frequency of purchase of suboptimal food products; Intention to purchase suboptimal foods; Price Consciousness; Deal Proneness; Value Consciousness; Price-Quality Schema; Prestige Sensitivity; Perceived Budget Constraints."
## [2535] "Subscales: Approach; Avoidance."
## [2536] "Subscales: Fear of getting fat; Eating-related control; Food preoccupation; Social pressure to gain weight; Vomiting-purging behavior."
## [2537] "Factors: Competence; Friendliness; Online store usefulness; Online store enjoyment; Online store value"
## [2538] "Factors: Interface Elements; Overall Interface Design"
## [2539] "Factors: Social Comparison; Past Comparison; Personal Standards; Feedback; Feared Future; Upward Past Comparison; Upward Social Comparison; Negative Behavior."
## [2540] "Subscales: Positive Sentences; Positive Adjectives; Negative Sentences; Negative Adjectives"
## [2541] "Factors: Providing of religious support; Listening to one’s life perception; Finding of one’s value."
## [2542] "Domain/Scales: Individual/Self (Confidence; Emotional insight; Negative cognition; Social skills; Empathy/Tolerance; Family; Connectedness; Availability; Peers); Peers (Connectedness; Availability); School (Supportive environment; Connectedness); Community (Connectedness)."
## [2543] "Subscales: High standards; Order; Discrepancy."
## [2544] "Scales (Subscales): Victim of Violence (Victim of Violence in Childhood; Victim of Violence in Adulthood); Used Violence (Used Violence as a Child; Used Violence as an Adult)."
## [2545] "Factors: Positive Highly Processed Food Expectancies; Negative Highly Processed Food Expectancies; Positive Minimally Processed Food Expectancies; Negative Minimally Processed Food Expectancies."
## [2546] "Factors: Autonomy; Clear Thinking; Competence; Emotional Stability; Empathy; Engagement; Meaning; Optimism; Positive Emotions; Positive Relationships; Prosocial Behavior; Resilience; Self-Acceptance; Self-Esteem; Vitality."
## [2547] "Factors: Self; Services; System."
## [2548] "Factors: Commitment; In-depth exploration; Reconsideration of commitment."
## [2549] "Subscales: Hyperactivity; Emotional symptoms; Conduct problems; Peer problems; Prosocial scale."
## [2550] "Factors: Positive metacognitions about emotional self-regulation; Positive metacognitions about cognitive self-regulation."
## [2551] "Factors: Negative metacognitions about uncontrollability; Negative metacognitions about cognitive harm."
## [2552] "Factors: Second-Order Factor: Readiness for renewal (RnW); Lower-Order Factors: Ethical Communication (EtC); Effective Organizational Rhetoric (EfR)."
## [2553] "Second-Order Factor: Readiness for renewal. Lower-Order Factors: Ethical Communication; Effective Organizational Rhetoric"
## [2554] "Factors: Positive Effect; Personal Image; Adverse Features; Service and Cost."
## [2555] "Factors: Cognitive; Arousal; Somatic."
## [2556] "Factors: Procedural effort; Cognitive confusion; Time-related effort; Affective effort."
## [2557] "Factors: Setting (SET); Atmospherics (AT); Wine Quality (WQ); Wine Value (WV); Complementary Product (CP); Signage (SI); Service Staff (SS)."
## [2558] "Factors: Delegation of authority (Delegación de autoridad); Accountability (Ser informado/a); Self-directed decision making (Toma de decisiones autodirigida); Information sharing (Intercambio de información); Skill development ( Desarrollo de habilidades); Coaching for innovative performance (Entrenamiento para la innovación)."
## [2559] "Factors: Engagement; Fear; Knowledge"
## [2560] "Factors: Academic load; Clinical concerns; Interface worries; Personal problems."
## [2561] "Factors: Academic load; Clinical concerns; Interface worries; Personal problems."
## [2562] "Subscales: Adjusting; Concealing; Tolerating."
## [2563] "Dimensions: Worry; Sadness; Disgust; Anger; Guilt; Cheers; Calm."
## [2564] "Subscales: Physical; Psychological."
## [2565] "Factors: Contamination; Responsibility; Thoughts; Symmetry."
## [2566] "Factors: Medication taking behavior; Attitude towards taking medications."
## [2567] "Subscales: Usefulness; Residual limb health; Appearance; Sounds; Ambulation; Transfers; Perceived responses; Frustration; Social burden; Well-being."
## [2568] "Subscales: Moderate intensity; Vigorous intensity; Affective component; Cognitive component."
## [2569] "Factors: Reward; Punish; Neglect; Override; Magnify. Subscales: Sadness; Anger; Fear; Overjoy."
## [2570] "Subscales: Object Recognition; Scene Perception; Object Recognition in Context; Silhouettes; Full Line Drawings; Fragmented Outlines; Object in Noise; Unconventional Viewpoints; Coherent Motion Perception; Kinetic Object Segmentation; Biological Motion; Overlapping Figures; Embedded Figures; Missing Parts."
## [2571] "Subscales: Contamination; Responsibility for Harm; Unacceptable thoughts; Symmetry."
## [2572] "Subscales: Independence; Emotion; Social inclusion; Social exclusion; Physical Limitation; Treatment."
## [2573] "Factors: Avoidance and social concerns; Concerns about weight gain; Concerns about the future; Concerns about physical appearance."
## [2574] "Subscales: Knowledge and myths about child sex offenders; Affect-based judgments about child sex offenders; Attitudes toward treatment; Attitudes toward sentencing and management."
## [2575] "Subscales: Aggressive/Disruptive Behavior; Anhedonia Rating; Anxiety; Caregiver Distress; Communication; Cognitive Functioning; Depressive Symptoms; Distractibility/Hyperactivity; Peer Conflict; Sleep Difficulties."
## [2576] "Subscales: Obsession; Neglect; Control Disorder."
## [2577] "Scales: Autonomy-oriented help; Dependency-oriented help; Preference for autonomy-oriented over dependency-oriented help."
## [2578] "Subscales: Obsession; Neglect; Control Disorder."
## [2579] "Subscales: Heightened Visual Sensitivity and Discomfort (HVSD); Aura-like Hallucinatory Experience (AHE); Distorted Visual Perception (DVP)."
## [2580] "Domains: Emotional (6 questions, maximum score 12); Personal and Social Life (10 questions, maximum score 20)."
## [2581] "Subscales: Appropriate recognition skill; Inappropriate recognition skill; Say skill; Do skill; Tell skill; Reporting skill; Personal safety."
## [2582] "Subscales: General health perception; Pain; Physical functioning; Role functioning; Social functioning; Energy/fatigue; Mental health; Health distress; Cognitive functioning; Quality of life; Health transition."
## [2583] "Subscales: Pain (P); Physical functioning (PF); Role functioning (RF); Social functioning (SF); Mental health (MH); Energy/Fatigue (EF); Health distress (HD); Cognitive functioning (CF); Quality of life (QL); Health transition (HT)."
## [2584] "Factors: Controlling Involvement; Autonomy Supportive Involvement."
## [2585] "Subscales: Impression Management; Leader–member Exchange; Coworker Exchange; Customer–Employee Exchange; Conscientiousness; Empathy."
## [2586] "Subscales: Individual Responsibility; Systems Responsibility"
## [2587] "Factors: Parenting; Genetics; Supernatural; Medical/Chemical."
## [2588] "Factors: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [2589] "Subscales: Goal-directedness; Personal meaning; Beyond-the-self orientation."
## [2590] "Factors: Cognitive Benefit; Social Integrative Benefit; Hedonic Benefits; Product Attachment; Intention to Continuously Participate in Co-creation."
## [2591] "Subscales: Task dimension-Stage 1; Task dimension-Stage 2; Task dimension-Stage 3; Task dimension-Stage 4; Interpersonal dimension-Stage 1; Interpersonal dimension-Stage 2; Interpersonal dimension-Stage 3; Interpersonal dimension-Stage 4."
## [2592] "Subscales: Individual-Confidence (self/future); Individual-Emotional insight; Individual-Negative cognition; Individual-Social skills; Individual-Empathy/Tolerance; Family-Connectedness; Family-Availability; Peers-Connectedness; Peers-Availability; School-Supportive Environment; School-Connectedness; Community-Connectedness."
## [2593] "Subscales: Cognitive-Emotional; Behavioral Arousal; Sleep Stability; Daytime Sleep; Physiological; Sleep Environment."
## [2594] "Subscales: Willingness to invest in stocks; Financial risk attitude."
## [2595] "Subscales: Emotional intolerance; Demand for comfort; Entitlement; Achievement."
## [2596] "Subscales: Personal Responsibility; Personal Transparency; Personal Answerability; Organizational Responsibility; Organizational Transparency; Organizational Answerability."
## [2597] "Dimensions: General factor on child psychological and physical abuse; Module 1 (minor severity); Module 2 (moderate severity); Module 3 (high severity)."
## [2598] "Factors: Positivity; Appreciation; Acceptance; Insight; Independence; Spirituality."
## [2599] "Factors: Gender-related discrimination; Gender-related rejection; Gender-related victimization; Nonaffirmation of gender identity; Internalized transphobia; Negative expectation for the future; Nondisclosure; Community connectedness; Pride."
## [2600] "Factors: General Body Symptoms; Eye-Related Symptoms"
## [2601] "Subscales: Meta-memory; Meta-concentration."
## [2602] "Subscales: Transportation; Financial management; Work ability."
## [2603] "Factors: Transportation; Financial management; Work ability."
## [2604] "Subscales: Fulfilment of co-occupation; Positive prospects for co-occupation."
## [2605] "Subscales: Vitality; Psychosocial feelings"
## [2606] "Factors: Support search; Connection; Intrusiveness; Self-confidence; Fear of disappointing parents."
## [2607] "Factors: Reassuring Communication; Antagonistic Communication; Stagnating Communication."
## [2608] "Domains: Energy; Family role; Language; Mobility; Mood; Personality; Self-care; Social role; Thinking; Upper extremity function; Vision; Work/productivity."
## [2609] "Factors: Supervision, follow-up and references to internal and external services; Usual or traditional measures offered; Authorization of incompletes or change in the course schedule."
## [2610] "Factors: Need to be consulted and recognized; Need for information and sensitization."
## [2611] "Subscales: Burden; Food selection; Eating duration; Eating desire; Eating loss; Fear; Sleep; Fatigue; Communication; Self-image; Psychological distress; Social functioning; Role functioning; Clinical information; Treatment options; Self-care advise; Technical quality; Patient-centered quality."
## [2612] "Perception Latent Factors: Comfort; Timely performance; Accessibility; Safety. Expectation Latent Factors: Expected comfort; Expected accessibility; Expected safety; Expected timely performance."
## [2613] "Factors: Perceived usefulness (PU); Emotional support (ES); Privacy risk (PR); Financial risk (FR); Disease severity extent (DSE); Personal information disclosure (PID)."
## [2614] "Subscales: Fears about short-term consequences of the child's epilepsy; Fears about the future development of the child and the child's epilepsy."
## [2615] "Subscales: Privacy; Validity; Reliability; System capability; System Transparency."
## [2616] "Factors: Anti-elitism attitudes (anti); Sovereignty (sov); Homogeneous and virtuous people (hom)."
## [2617] "Subscales: Autonomy; Competence; Relatedness."
## [2618] "Factors: Functional Independence; Attitudinal Independence; Emotional Independence; Conflictual Independence. Subscales: Maternal subscale; Paternal subscale."
## [2619] "Factors: Over conflict; Support; Self-controlled covert conflict; Externally-controlled covert conflict."
## [2620] "Factors: Autonomy satisfaction; Competence satisfaction; Relatedness satisfaction."
## [2621] "Factors: Behavioral intention; Facilitating conditions; Lean measures of system use (Frequency; Duration; Intensity of use); Rich measures of system use (Deep structure use; Cognitive absorption use); Job satisfaction; Job security; Job anxiety; Emotional exhaustion; Organizational commitment; Organizational trust"
## [2622] "Factors: Support; Interference; Lack of engagement. Subfactors: Support-education; Support-job; Interference-education; Interference-job; Lack-education; Lack-job."
## [2623] "Subscales: Sexual Harassment Bystander Behavior (SHBB), Consciousness Raising (CR), Activism/Advocacy (AA), and Sexual Assault Bystander Behavior (SABB)."
## [2624] "Subscales: Saving; Prospective memory; Episodic foresight; Planning; Delay of gratification"
## [2625] "Subscales: Visual; Acoustic; Haptic; Olfactory; Gustatory perception."
## [2626] "Subscales: Focus of instruction; Teaching moves; Role of teacher; Role of students; Classroom environment."
## [2627] "Subscales: Daily activities; Worry; Feeding difficulties."
## [2628] "Factors: Expressing Emotions; Collaboration and Problem-Solving; Communication; Behaviour."
## [2629] "Factors: Cognitive Support; Emotional Support."
## [2630] "Factors: Confidence in Working with Fathers; Competence in Using Engagement Strategies; Perceived Effectiveness of Engagement Strategies; Frequency of Strategy Use; Organizational Practices for Father Engagement."
## [2631] "Factors: Cultural socialization; Adapt; Advocate; Value diversity; Promote mistrust, Educate about nativity and documentation."
## [2632] "Subscales: Collaborative learning (CL); Critical thinking (CriT); Self-directed learning (SDL); Creative thinking (CreT); Meaningful use of ICT (ICT) Problem-solving (PS)"
## [2633] "Factors: Increasing structural job resources; Decreasing hindering job demands; Increasing social job resources; Increasing challenging job demands."
## [2634] "Factors: Increasing structural job resources (Aumento de los recursos estructurales del empleo); Decreasing hindering job demands (Disminución de las demandas del trabajo); Increasing social job resources (Aumento de los recursos sociales de em); Increasing challenging job demands (Creciente demanda de desafíos en el trabajo)."
## [2635] "Subscales: Diagnosis; Treatment; Laboratory tests; Self-care; Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); Psychosocial factors; Health-care providers."
## [2636] "Subscales: Actual Norms Subscale (ANS); Perceived Norms Subscale (PNS)."
## [2637] "Subtests: Mobility; Activities of daily living; Emotional well-being; Stigma; Social support; Cognition; Communication; Bodily discomfort."
## [2638] "Subscales: Mobility; Activities of daily living; Emotional well-being; Stigma; Social support; Cognitions; Communication; Bodily discomfort."
## [2639] "Factors: Internal Dialogue; Awareness; Imagery; Positive Affect; Volition; Altered Experience; Attention; Negative Affect; Memory."
## [2640] "Factors: Closeness; Co-ordination (Commitment); Complementarity."
## [2641] "Factors: Need thwarting; Need supportive."
## [2642] "Factors: Focus on social support; Focus on religious coping; Focus on the problem; Focus on emotion."
## [2643] "Subscales: Interactive control; Technical enjoyment; Frustration with technical deficiency."
## [2644] "Subscales: Social interaction; Entertainment; Passing time; Relaxation; Escape; Information; Habit."
## [2645] "Subscales: E-SWAN Panic; E-SWAN Social Anxiety; E-SWAN Depression; E-SWAN Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder."
## [2646] "Factors: Interpersonal functions; Intrapersonal functions."
## [2647] "Factors: Anticipated vegetarian stigma; Perceived tastiness of vegetarian dieting; Perceived financial cost of vegetarian dieting; Perceived convenience of vegetarian dieting; Familiarity with vegetarian dieting; Perceived healthfulness of vegetarian dieting; Openness to going vegetarian."
## [2648] "Dimensions: Social support (SS); Social adjustment (SA); Perceived environment resource (PER). Sub-dimensions: Emotional support; Informational support; Instrumental support; Social participation; Social relationship; Ego system; Built environment; Community management/service."
## [2649] "Subscales: Devaluation of Pleasure; Pleasurable Activity Expectancies; Negative Outcomes Expectancies; Attention to Pleasure."
## [2650] "Factors: Social loafing intention; Social loafing attitude; Mindfulness; Moral meaningfulness; Extrinsic motivation"
## [2651] "Subscales: Preference for tradition; Preference for gradual change."
## [2652] "Subscales: Recognizing suffering; Understanding the universality of suffering; Feeling for the person suffering; Tolerating uncomfortable feelings; Acting or being motivated to act to alleviate suffering"
## [2653] "Subscales: Accommodation; Occupation."
## [2654] "Scales: Mobility; Worries about others; Future worries; Maintaining purpose; Burden of illness."
## [2655] "Subscales: Feeling oneself through the gaze of the other and defining oneself through the evaluation of the other (GEO); Feeling oneself through objective measures (OM); Feeling extraneous from one's own body (EB); Feeling oneself through starvation (S)."
## [2656] "Factors: Feel yourself through the eyes and evaluation of others (GEO factor); To feel yourself through objective measures (OM Factor); To feel foreign to your body (EB Factor); Feel yourself through food deprivation (Factor S)"
## [2657] "Dimensions: Task characteristics; Knowledge characteristics; Social characteristics; Contextual characteristics."
## [2658] "Subscales: Work planning autonomy; Decision and execution autonomy; Task variety; Task significance; Task identity; Feedback from job; Job complexity; Information processing; Problem-solving; Specialization; Social support; Interdependence; Interaction outside organization; Feedback from others; Comfort at work; Physical demands; Work conditions; Equipment use."
## [2659] "Subscales: Leadership; Communication; Strategies and Plans; Continuous Improvement; Learning."
## [2660] "Subscales: Kindness; Common humanity; Mindfulness; Indifference."
## [2661] "Subscales: Satisfaction; Frustration."
## [2662] "Subscales: The results indicated an acceptable model fit to the data for the six constructs, with chi-squared = 550.16 (df = 200, p < 0.01), normed chi-squared = 2.75, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95 and RMSEA = 0.06."
## [2663] "Subscales: Autonomy satisfaction; Competence satisfaction; Relatedness satisfaction; Autonomy dissatisfaction; Competence dissatisfaction; Relatedness dissatisfaction."
## [2664] "Dimensions: Physical Violence; Humiliation; Sexual Violence; Mockery."
## [2665] "Factors: Emotional participation; Behavioral participation; Information participation; Employee innovative behavior; Affective trust; Cognitive trust."
## [2666] "Subscales: Physical Violence; Sexual Violence; Accusing/Humiliating; Taunting; Oppressing."
## [2667] "Factors: Congruence/Experiential Fluidity; Incongruence/Experiential Constriction."
## [2668] "Domains: Drug characteristics; Duration of treatment; Constraints; Side effects; Efficacy; Global acceptance."
## [2669] "Factors: Persistence; Low self-centeredness; Attentional control; Enjoyment and transformation of boredom; Enjoyment and transformation of challenges; Intrinsic motivation; Curiosity."
## [2670] "Factors: Adult Process Interference; Adult Exposure Interference (TIBS-Adult); Child Process Interference; Child Attendance Interference; Child Exposure Interference (TIBS-Child)."
## [2671] "Factors: Monitoring and Planning (Supervisión y planificación); Confidence in Memory (Confianza en la memoria); Self-focus on Thoughts (Autofocalización en los pensamientos)."
## [2672] "Factors: Calm; Reactive; Clear; Distracted; Kind; Critical."
## [2673] "Subscales: Calm; Clear; Kind; Reactivity; Distraction; Criticalness."
## [2674] "Constructs: Perception of MA use; Perception of STD/AIDS; Behaviours of MA use; High-risk sexual behaviours related to MA use."
## [2675] "Subscales: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence"
## [2676] "Subscales: Professional Ethnocentrism (PE); Emotional Openness (EO); Ethical Risk Management Efficacy (ERME)."
## [2677] "Factors: Teacher-driven characteristics; Cohesive social behaviors; Disruptive social behaviors; Classroom structure and layout; Classroom schedule and encouragement; Activity completion in the classroom"
## [2678] "Factors: Being; Belonging; Becoming; System Impacts"
## [2679] "Factors: Informativeness; Third-party endorsement; Personal relevance; Self-promotional message tone; Consistency; Transparency"
## [2680] "Factors: Human-to-human interaction (HHI); Human-to-information interaction (HII); Outcome expectation of health self-management competence (OHSC); Outcome expectation of social relationship (OSR); Health-related information exchange (HIE)."
## [2681] "Constructs: Power; Urgency; External Legitimacy; Internal Legitimacy."
## [2682] "Domains: Sexual function and dysfunction; Fertility and reproduction; Sexuality across the lifespan; Sexual minority health; Society, culture, and behavior; Safety and prevention."
## [2683] "Factors: Anxiety; Conflict; Initiation; Guilt; Infidelity; Body image; Predictability; Communication; Security; Physical affection; Hopelessness; Self-esteem; Relationship status; Normalness."
## [2684] "Subscales: Introvertive mysticism; Extrovertive mysticism; Interpretation of mystical experiences."
## [2685] "Factors: Choice counter-conformity; Unpopular choice counter-conformity; Avoidance of similarity."
## [2686] "Factors: Interoceptive urges and visceral pain; Interoceptive experiences and bodily pain."
## [2687] "Factors: Enjoyment; Pride; Anxiety; Anger; Shame; Boredom; Hopelessness."
## [2688] "Subscales: Absence of Negative; Presence of Positive."
## [2689] "Factors: Striving for distinction; Self-sacrifice; Refusing to accept limits."
## [2690] "Factors: Acting with Awareness; Describe; Nonjudgment; Nonreactivity."
## [2691] "Subscales: Logical Thinking; Cooperation; Algorithm; Control; Debug."
## [2692] "Factors: Self-determined solitude (SDS); Not self-determined solitude (NSDS)."
## [2693] "Subscales: Metacognitive; Cognitive; Motivational; Behavioral."
## [2694] "Factors: Designated gambling behavior; Designated social life; Designated personal hardship"
## [2695] "Factors: Sleep-related disturbances caused by nightmares; Dysfunction caused by nightmares."
## [2696] "Factors: Motivation towards reading; Reader’s interests; Attitudes toward social reading; Perception of reading competence; Motivation towards learning or study."
## [2697] "Factors: Cognitive engagement (CE); Affective engagement (AE); Behavioral engagement (BE)."
## [2698] "Factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness."
## [2699] "Factors: Internalization Seller Influence Tactics (SITs); Compliance SITs; Identification SITs; Informedness; Purchase; Pre-purchase intention; Search ability."
## [2700] "Factors: Morphological production; Morphological judgment; Morphological judgment2; Morphological judgment and morphological production; Morphological judgment and morphological production of verbs; Morphological production2."
## [2701] "Factors: Commitment to resilience; Deference to expertise; Environmental sustainability; Mindful organizing; Preoccupation with failure; Reluctance to simplify interpretations; Resources sustainability; Sensitivity to operations."
## [2702] "Factors: Cognitive coordination; Cognitive evaluation; Thought control."
## [2703] "Subscales: Design aesthetics; Size; Uniqueness; Purchase intention (non-users); Use behavior (users)."
## [2704] "Factors: Cybervictimization; Cyberaggression; Cyberbystanding."
## [2705] "Subscales: Concerns about the exchange of patient medical information; Concerns related to public charge designation; Concern that HIV is a disfavored disease."
## [2706] "Factors: Positive affect (PA); Negative affect (NA)."
## [2707] "Factors: Performance Orientation (PO); Innovation Orientation (IO)."
## [2708] "Factors: Interpersonal resentment; Third-party forgiveness; Collectivistic forgiveness."
## [2709] "Subscales: Head and neck symptoms; Pain and discomfort; Sleep; Upper limb activities; Walking; Annoyance; Mood; Psychosocial functioning."
## [2710] "Subscales: Stigma; Emotional wellbeing; Pain; Activities of daily living; Social/family life."
## [2711] "Dimensions: Inbound practices; Production Practices; Outbound practices."
## [2712] "Subscales: Green human resource management (GHRM) practices; Enablers of green organizational culture (EGC); Environmental performance."
## [2713] "Sub-factors: Negative affect; Anxiety; Denial of historical reparation; Symbolic exclusion; Denial of contemporary injustice."
## [2714] "Subscales: Family; Group; Reciprocity; Heroism; Deference; Fairness; Property"
## [2715] "Factors: Physical fatigue; Emotional fatigue; Cognitive fatigue."
## [2716] "Scales: Biospheric; Altruistic; Hedonic; Egoistic."
## [2717] "Factors: Competence perception; Competence value; Relatedness perception; Relatedness value; Autonomy perception; Autonomy value; Immediate pleasure perception; Immediate pleasure value."
## [2718] "Subscales: School identification/peer support; Connection to teachers."
## [2719] "Factors: Innovation Orientation; Performance Orientation; Exploration; Exploitation; Radical product innovation; Incremental product innovation; Speed to market; Dynamism; Munificence; Slack"
## [2720] "Subscales: Mother; Father."
## [2721] "Subscales: Online learning self-efficacy (OLSE); Learner–content interaction (LCI); Learner–instructor interaction (LII); Learner–learner interaction (LLI); Student satisfaction; Perceived learning."
## [2722] "Factors: Autonomous motivation; Controlled motivation; Attitudes; Subjective Norms; Perceived Behavioural Control; Intentions."
## [2723] "Factors: Inviting to talk about feelings and thoughts; Caring towards health and wellbeing; Building a caring relationship; Encouraging social aspects in daily life."
## [2724] "Factors: Inviting the patients to establish a relationship; Showing interest in the patients’ feelings, experiences and behavior; Helping the patient to establish structure and routines in everyday life."
## [2725] "Factors: Disclosure; Solicitation; Control."
## [2726] "Dimensions: Communication; Sharing; Anger; Restrictive coparenting; Facilitative coparenting; Respect; Trust; Conflict; Valuing."
## [2727] "Factors: Management safety commitment (MSC); Supervisor safety behavior (SSB); Co-worker safety behavior (CSB); Workers' involvement (WIN); Psychological contract of safety (PCS)"
## [2728] "Scales: Supervisor support for safety; Safety self-efficacy; Cavalier safety attitude; Safety consciousness."
## [2729] "Dimensions: Gross Motor; Symptoms; Fine Motor; Recreational Activities."
## [2730] "Factors: Meaning; Mastery; Immersion; Autonomy; Curiosity; Ease of Control; Audiovisual appeal; Challenge; Goals and Rules; Progress feedback."
## [2731] "Factors: Usefulness; Ease of use; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Community identity; Motivational influence; Social relations; Work related; Daily activity; Communication; Collaboration; Resource/material sharing"
## [2732] "Factors: Maintaining short-term efficiency and long-term development (SL); Conforming to and shaping collective forces in the environment (CS); Maintaining stability and flexibility (SF); Focus on shareholders and the stakeholder community (SS)."
## [2733] "Subscales: Attitude toward sciences; Intention to pursue or engage in science; Behavioral beliefs; Control beliefs; Normative beliefs."
## [2734] "Six-Factor Model (Sub-factors): Amotivation; External regulation; Introjected Regulation; Identified Regulation; Integrative Regulation; Intrinsic Motivation. Three-Factor Model: Autonomy Motivation; Controlled Motivation; Amotivation."
## [2735] "Factors: Physical aggression; Verbal aggression; Anger; Hostility."
## [2736] "Subscales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [2737] "Subscales: Biological; Psychological; Social; Family/Caregiver; Health System."
## [2738] "Factors: Perceived Capacity; Internal Motivation; External Motivation."
## [2739] "Factors: Expressive Enhancement; Expressive Suppression."
## [2740] "Subscales: Physical Health Status; Mental Health Status."
## [2741] "Factors: Intimidation by Partner; Intimidation by Self"
## [2742] "Factors: Emotionality (Emotionalität); Impulsiveness (Impulsivität); Immature personality traits/Anxious depressive symptoms and behaviors (Unreife Persönlichkeitseigenschaften/Ängstlich-depressive Symptomatik und Verhaltensweisen); Protest behavior (Protestverhalten); Difficulty concentrating /Overactivity (Konzentrationsstörungen/Überaktivität); Disorder of social adaptation (Störung der sozialen Adaptation); School Success (Schulerfolg)."
## [2743] "Factors: Controlling and Jealous Behavior; Financial Control"
## [2744] "Factors: Task crafting; Relational crafting; Cognitive crafting."
## [2745] "AF-IPQ-R Subscales: Identity; Timeline; Consequences; Personal control; treatment control; Illness coherence; Timeline cyclical; Emotional representations; Triggers. AF-IPQ-R triggers scale: Emotional triggers; Health behavior triggers; Over-exertion triggers."
## [2746] "Factors: Loss of Control; Addiction Symptoms; Functional Impairment; Hide."
## [2747] "Factors: Enhancement; Coping (Escape); Social Motives"
## [2748] "Factors: Stress linked to decision making (Estrés vinculado con toma de decisiones); Stress linked with ambiguity (Estrés vinculado con ambigüedad); Stress linked with frustration and impulsiveness (Estrés vinculado con frustración e impulsividad)."
## [2749] "Subscales: Obsessive-compulsive buying; Impulsive buying."
## [2750] "Factors: Tolerance to Frustration and Ambiguity (TA); Follow-up of Instructions and Impulsivity (TF/I); Decision Making (DM)."
## [2751] "Factors: Escapism and dysfunctional emotional coping; Withdrawal symptoms; Impairments and dysfunctional self-regulation; Dysfunctional Internet-related self-control."
## [2752] "Subscales: Empowerment with respect to the family system; Empowerment with respect to the service system; Empowerment with respect to the social/political system."
## [2753] "Subscales: Unconditional Permission to Eat; Eating for Physical Rather Than Emotional Reasons; Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues."
## [2754] "Subscales: Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity; Perceived benefits; Perceived barriers; Cues to action; Self-efficacy."
## [2755] "Subscales: Helping others; Self-development; Organizational loyalty; Developing others; Civic virtue; Obedience."
## [2756] "Subscales: Knowledge of laws and regulations; Knowledge of values and principles; Ethical reflection; Ethical decision-making; Ethical behavior and action."
## [2757] "Subscales: Organizational support for ethical competence (Encouragement on ethical activity; Informing on ethical issues; Dealing with ethical issues in orientation; conversational support at the unit level); Individual support for ethical competence (Compliance with laws and regulations; Compliance with ethical values and principles; Multidisciplinary discussion of ethical issues; Support for ethics education; Peer support; Support for dealing with ethical problems; Compliance with ethics codes)."
## [2758] "Factors: Customer loyalty; Locus of causality; Controllability; Stability; Customer satisfaction; Behavioral intentions (Attribution)."
## [2759] "Dimensions: Mobility; Self-Care; Usual Activities; Pain/Discomfort; Anxiety/Depression."
## [2760] "Factors: Authoritative; Authoritarian; Permissive."
## [2761] "Factors: General Creativity (Usefulness; Novelty)."
## [2762] "Factors: Illness Likelihood; Body Vigilance."
## [2763] "Subscales: Self-concept; Parenting style; Self-awareness; Emotional regulation."
## [2764] "Factors: Verbal Comprehension; Perceptual Reasoning; Working Memory; Processing Speed. Subtests: Similarities; Vocabulary; Comprehension; Information; Word Reasoning; Block Design; Picture Completion; Matrix Reasoning; Picture Concepts; Digit Span; Letter-Number Sequencing; Arithmetic; Coding; Symbol Search; Cancellation."
## [2765] "Factors: Isolation; Professional support; Confidence; Worry."
## [2766] "Factors: Macro resilience of destination urban tourism; Micro resilience of destination urban tourism"
## [2767] "Domains: Control over daily life; Personal cleanliness and comfort; Food and drink; Personal safety; Social participation and involvement; Occupation; Accommodation cleanliness and comfort; Dignity."
## [2768] "Factors: Innovation behavior; Explicit knowledge sourcing; Transparency; Tacit knowledge sourcing; Task-efficacy"
## [2769] "Factors: Teacher-Controlled Instruction; Entity-Increment; Student-Centered Instruction; Attaining Standards"
## [2770] "Factors: Attitude of Holistic Affective Practice; Attitudes of Empowered Pedagogical Practices."
## [2771] "Factors: Assessment; Planning; Supervision; Decision-making."
## [2772] "Factors: Family communication pattern; Family power structure; Family role structure; Family values; Family affective function; Family socialization function; Family health-care function; Family reproduction function; Family economic."
## [2773] "Factors: Engagement in Health Care; Technology Approach to Health Care; Proactive Approach to Health Care; Psychological Support for Health Care."
## [2774] "Subscales: Trisyllabic Non-Words; Disyllabic Non-Words."
## [2775] "Factors: The alcoholic person: the work and the interpersonal relations; Etiology; Disease; The social repercussions of using/abusing alcohol; Alcoholic beverages."
## [2776] "Subscales: Rest-Paradigm; Activity-Paradigm."
## [2777] "Attitudes toward work and interpersonal relationships with alcoholic persons; Attitudes toward the person with an alcohol use disorder; Attitudes toward alcohol abuse/alcoholism disorders (etiology); Attitudes toward alcoholic beverages and their use; Knowledge or adequacy."
## [2778] "Subscales: Frequency; Importance."
## [2779] "Subscales: Cognition and intention to report; Barriers to report."
## [2780] "Factors: Service‐based psychological ownership; Music‐based psychological ownership; Investment of self; Intimate knowledge; Control of the object; Intention to switch."
## [2781] "Subscales: Daily Activities; Treatment Barriers; Worry; Communication."
## [2782] "Scales: Parental Involvement; Parent-Child Relationship; Self-Efficacy in Mathematics; Intrinsic Motivation for Mathematics; Effort; Satisfaction with Learning Results."
## [2783] "Subscales: Impairment/avoidance; Preoccupation/repetitive behaviour; Insight/distress."
## [2784] "Factors: Addiction; Loss of pleasure; Regret; Toxic mood."
## [2785] "Scales: Buprenorphine knowledge/attitude; Methadone knowledge/attitude."
## [2786] "Factors: Negative reactions; Positive reactions."
## [2787] "Domains: Physical; Psychological; Level of Independence; Social; Environment; Spiritual, Religious, Personal Beliefs."
## [2788] "Factors: Physical health; Psychological health; Level of independence; Social relations; Environmental health; Spirituality/personal beliefs."
## [2789] "Dimensions: Biomedical cause; Fault; Control; Meaning; Effectiveness of natural treatments; Preference for partnership."
## [2790] "Factors: Source; Nature; Instrument."
## [2791] "Empowerment Subscales: Power is developed through relationships (Cognitive); Political functioning (Cognitive); Shaping ideology (Cognitive); Perceived leadership competence (Emotional); Political efficacy (Emotional); Behavioral Empowerment (Behavioral)"
## [2792] "Subscales: Attitudes; Perceived behavioral control; Subjective norms; Behavioral intention; General treatment factors."
## [2793] "Subscales: Picture naming; Semantics; Sentence reading; Orientation; Recall and recognition; Number writing; Calculation; Broken hearts test; Trails task; Imitating meaningless gestures."
## [2794] "Subscales: Consumer-focused coping; Problem-solving; Social support seeking; Distraction; Trivializing."
## [2795] "Subscales: Sleep thoughts, feelings, physical sensation and behaviors; Sleep quality and patterns; Factors related to sleep disturbances; Daytime sleepiness and impact on daily functioning; Quantity of sleep."
## [2796] "Subscales: Social Thermoregulation; High Temperature Sensitivity; Solitary Thermoregulation; Risk Avoidance."
## [2797] "Factors: Object control; Locomotor skills."
## [2798] "Factors: Number skill activities; Number book activities; Number game activities; Number application activities"
## [2799] "Factors (Subscales): Locomotion (Running; Jumping; Hopping; Leaping); Object-Control (Throwing; Catching; Bouncing; Kicking)."
## [2800] "Subscales: Locomotion; Object Control; Active Play."
## [2801] "Factors: Endurance; Flexibility; Strength; Coordination; Speed; General Athleticism; Attractiveness."
## [2802] "Subscales: She looked for it; It wasn't really a rape; There are none had no intention; She lied; He was drunk."
## [2803] "Factor: Approach Flexibility."
## [2804] "Scales: Sexual Rewards and Costs Checklist; Sexual Exchanges Questionnaire; Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction; Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction."
## [2805] "Domains: Verbal Intimacy; Affective Intimacy; Physical Intimacy."
## [2806] "Subdimensions: Susceptibility; Seriousness; Health Motivation; Benefits and Health Motivation; Barriers; Self-Efficacy."
## [2807] "Factors: Perceived uncertainty; Acquisition value; e-Loyalty; Frugality."
## [2808] "Factors: Felt accountability; Bottom-line mentality; Team service climate; Cross-selling initiative climate; Team service-sales performance. Subfactors: Sales performance; Service performance"
## [2809] "Factors: Trust; Privacy; Intention to purchase; Happiness; Anxiety; Sadness; Anger"
## [2810] "Factors: Similarity with friends; Perceived ad value; Social network trust; Similarity with brand; Social network affect; Friend likability."
## [2811] "Factors: Perceived complexity of psychoanalysis; Eclecticism; Psychoanalytic training; Perceived ineffectiveness of psychoanalysis."
## [2812] "Factors: Knowledge acquisition and transformation: In my organization (Acquisition et transformation des connaissances. Dans mon organization); Organizational learning support: In my organization (Soutien organisationnel à l’apprentissage. Dans mon organization); Organizational culture: In my organization (Culture organisationnelle. Dans mon organization); Learning-oriented leadership: In my organization (Leadership axé sur l’apprentissage. Dans mon organization); Strategic knowledge management and learning. In my organization (Gestion stratégiques des connaissances et apprentissages. Dans mon organisation)."
## [2813] "Factors: Network density; Network centrality; Relational social capital; Cognitive social capital; Knowledge sharing; Innovation; Performance"
## [2814] "Subscales: Injury identity composed of Social and Body part components; PTSD symptoms; Injury event; Injury-specific emotions; Injured self-image; Positive consequences; Responsibility/guilt; Coping; Time distance; Dependency; Healthy self; External attributions; Injury risk factors."
## [2815] "Scales: Appraisals; Action tendencies; Bodily reactions; Expressions; Subjective feelings; Emotions."
## [2816] "Scales: Aggression; Effortful Control; Negative Affect; Locus of Control (a/b); Callous Affect; Impulsivity; Manipulation; Egotism (a/b); Pessimism; Risk-Taking; Rule-Defiance (a/b); Cynicism."
## [2817] "Factors: Physical fatigue; Mental fatigue; Emotional fatigue."
## [2818] "Factors: Relationship with my husband; Uneasiness of old age; Work-life balance; Relationship with my friends; Health concerns."
## [2819] "Subscales: Family-centered care (FCC); Interprofessional care (IPC)."
## [2820] "Subscales: Positive organization; Fit and development; Positive relations with co-workers; Contribution to the organization."
## [2821] "Subscales: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; Intellect."
## [2822] "Subscales: Tenderness; Sympathy; Personal distress."
## [2823] "Subscales: Care; Fairness; Loyalty; Authority; Sanctity"
## [2824] "Factors: Calmness; Happiness; Anxiety; Sadness."
## [2825] "Subscales: Identification of Meaning; Connection of Meaning; Realization of Meaning."
## [2826] "Factors: Enjoyment of gambling; Harm to partner; Harm to self (Difficulty in impulse control; Cognitive-emotional dissonance)."
## [2827] "Subscales: Fear; Control."
## [2828] "Factors: Sense of Mastery; Sense of Relatedness; Emotional Reactivity. Subscales: Optimism (Mastery); Adaptability (Mastery); Self-Efficacy (Mastery); Comfort (Relatedness); Trust (Relatedness); Tolerance (Relatedness); Support (Relatedness); Recovery (Reactivity); Sensitivity (Reactivity); Impairment (Reactivity)."
## [2829] "Factors: Enjoyment of gambling; Harm to partner; Harm to self."
## [2830] "Factors: Overwhelming emotional distress; Distrust, hatred and disgust toward the other; Astonishment with the other's behavior; Efforts toward forgiving and reparation; Concealment of emotions; Effort to generate positive thoughts and to overcome"
## [2831] "Factors: Control; Attitude; Reciprocity; Identity; Need."
## [2832] "Factors: Safeguarding rights and interests; Moderating consumption; Promotion of local residents’ income; Respecting local cultures; Conserving resources."
## [2833] "Factors: Care attitudes; Perception of the family."
## [2834] "Subscales: Regulation; Data privacy; Domain specific; Knowledge; Societal responsibility; Company responsibility."
## [2835] "Subscales: Fear; Avoidance."
## [2836] "Subscales: Emotional contagion (EC); Attention to others' feelings (AOF); Prosocial actions (PA)."
## [2837] "Subscales: Stress Experienced (SE); Women's Attributes (WA); Quality of Care (QC)."
## [2838] "Subscales: Emotional Deprivation; Abandonment; Mistrust; Isolation; Defectiveness; Failure; Dependence; Vulnerability to harm or illness; Enmeshment; Subjugation; Self–Sacrifice; Recognition-Seeking; Entitlement; Insufficient Self-Control; Unrelenting Standards; Emotional Inhibition; Negativity; Punitiveness."
## [2839] "Subscales: Student classroom behavior; Teacher classroom management."
## [2840] "Subscales: Acceptance/Confidence; Comfort with Public Perception; Social Support/Voice; Body Comfort."
## [2841] "Factors: Closeness; Commitment; Complementarity."
## [2842] "Subscales: Enjoyment; Social influences; Advantage over cigarettes; Health concerns; Smoker association."
## [2843] "Subscales: State (STARS-S); Trait (STARS-T)."
## [2844] "Subscales: Acculturation Host; Acculturation Heritage; Resilience."
## [2845] "Factors: Perceived media richness; Functionality; Personality trait of openness; Self-presentation; Friendship development."
## [2846] "Subscales: Work; Well-being; Control; Concern; Habit."
## [2847] "Factors: Loyalty; Autonomy Need Satisfaction; Competence Need Satisfaction; Relatedness Need Satisfaction; Self-worth."
## [2848] "Level 1 Factors: Entrepreneur satisfaction; Entrepreneur work-life balance; Firm social responsibility; Firm reputation; Employees satisfaction; Clients satisfaction. Level 2 Factors: Entrepreneur satisfaction; Relations with the environment; Pro-social activity; Firm credibility."
## [2849] "Scales: Technical skills (Savoir-faire); Interpersonal skills (Savoir-être)."
## [2850] "Factors: Enhancing Positive Affect; Perspective Taking; Soothing; Social Modeling."
## [2851] "Subscales: Positive Problem Solving; Conflict Engagement; Withdrawal."
## [2852] "Factors: Friends and family touch (FFT); Current intimate touch (CIT); Childhood touch (ChT); Attitude to self-care (ASC); Attitude to intimate touch (AIT); Attitude to unfamiliar touch (AUT)."
## [2853] "Domains: Utility; Implementation; Display."
## [2854] "Subscales: Risk of Offending (ROF); Risk of Vulnerability (ROV)."
## [2855] "Factors: Sexual esteem; Sexual preoccupation; Internal sexual control; Sexual consciousness; Sexual motivation; Sexual anxiety; Sexual assertiveness; Sexual depression; External sexual control; Sexual monitoring; Fear of sexual relationships; Sexual satisfaction."
## [2856] "Subscales: Cheating behavior; Interpersonal conflict; Intimidation impression management; Neglect; Positive affect; Creativity; Voice; Citizenship behavior"
## [2857] "Factors: Supporting Independence; Family-Centered Communication; Respectful Relationships."
## [2858] "Factors: Remuneration; Assignment specific financial obligations; Developmental obligations."
## [2859] "Subscales: Intercultural Interests; Compassion; Financial Interests; Primary Health Care Orientation Preferences; Challenge Seeker; Clinical Self Containment; Personal Demand Preferences; Living location; Lifestyle; Avoidance Needs; Belonging Needs; Relationship Imperatives; Spiritual Beliefs; Clinical Competence."
## [2860] "Factors: Psychological contract fulfillment (Developmental; Assignment Financial Support; Remuneration); Identification with the multinational corporation (ID) (Job Satisfaction; Career Satisfaction)."
## [2861] "Factors: Emotional risk perception; Plan creation risk perception."
## [2862] "Factors (Facets): Well-Being (Self-esteem; Optimism; Happiness; Self-motivation); Self-control (Emotion regulation; Stress management; Impulsivity; Adaptability); Emotionality (Emotion perception; Empathy; Relationships); Sociability (Assertiveness; Social awareness; Emotion management; Emotion expression)."
## [2863] "Support Factors: Confiding/Emotional; Practical; Negative Aspects of Support"
## [2864] "Subscales: Decision-making (UDM); Exploration (EXP); Taking action (UTA); Problem-solving (UPS); External (EXU)."
## [2865] "Domains: Pulmonary complaints; School functioning; Growth and nutrition; Exercise and locomotion; Emotional functioning and health care concerns."
## [2866] "Subscales: Social discomfort (SDS); Negative self‐image (NSIS)."
## [2867] "Subscales: Autonomy, Respectful Care, and Communication (ARC); Health Facility Environment (HFE)."
## [2868] "Factors: Perceived Community Focus on Sex; Perceived Community Focus on Status; Perceived Community Social Competition; Perceived Community Exclusion of Diversity"
## [2869] "Factors: Task Characteristics; Technology Characteristics; Task-technology Fit; Complexity; Observability; Relative Advantage; Intention to use."
## [2870] "Factors: Deliberate (MW-D); Spontaneous (MW-S)."
## [2871] "Sub-Factors: Detached awareness; Inclusive identity; Perspective taking; Growth."
## [2872] "Factors: Detached awareness; Inclusive identity; Perspective taking; Growth."
## [2873] "Factors: Positive Expectancy; Negative Expectancy."
## [2874] "Factors: Boundaryless mindset; Mobility preference"
## [2875] "Subscales: Children's self-attributions; Mothers' self-attributions; Fathers' self-attributions; Mothers' child attributions; Fathers' child attributions."
## [2876] "Subscales: Reckless; Anxious; Careful; Angry; Dissociative; Distress Reduction."
## [2877] "Subscales: Negative urgency (NU); Lack of premeditation (Prem); Lack of perseverance (Pers); Sensation seeking (SS); Positive urgency (PU)."
## [2878] "Subscales: Pain Self-Efficacy (PSE); Function Self-Efficacy (FSE); Other symptoms Self-Efficacy (OSE)."
## [2879] "Subscales: Residents’ attitude; Quality of care and caregivers; Resident engagement and peer relationships; Keeping in touch with people and the physical environment."
## [2880] "Factors: Health information-seeking behavior (INF); Health information privacy concerns (HIPC); Intention (INT); Trust beliefs (TRT); Risk perceptions (RSK); M‐health self‐efficacy (MHSE). Sudimensions: Collection; Secondary use; Improper access; Errors; Control; Awareness (HIPC)."
## [2881] "Subscales: Somatic symptoms; Emotional symptoms; Belief; Social stigma."
## [2882] "Factors: Enduring the Pain; Managing the Pain."
## [2883] "Subscales: Encounter; Participation; Support; Secure environment; Discharge; Secluded environment."
## [2884] "Factors: Self-Legitimacy; Support for Rehabilitation; Relations with Individuals in Custody; Fair Treatment by Supervisors; Relations with Colleagues."
## [2885] "Sub-Dimensions: General anxiety and specific fear; Perfectionism and control; Social anxiety and adjustment disorder; Acute anxiety and trauma."
## [2886] "Factors: Gross motor persistence; Cognitive persistence; Social persistent with peer; Social persistent with adult; Negative reactions to failure; General competence; Mastery pleasure."
## [2887] "Factors: Communication skills for teamwork; Adaptability to stressful situations at the disaster site; Practical skills for disaster response; Emergency nursing skills; Cooperation skills; Effective coping with daily stress."
## [2888] "Factors: Investment; Intimate knowledge; Control"
## [2889] "Factors: General Criminal Thinking; Proactive Criminal Thinking; Reactive Criminal Thinking."
## [2890] "Factors (FCQ-T): Conscious elaboration of food cravings; Lack of control under environmental cues; Hedonic hunger; Eating to regulate emotions."
## [2891] "Factors: Excitement; Concern; Sadness; Joy."
## [2892] "Subscales: Secrecy (Verschwiegenheit); Need to Communicate (Mitteilungsbedürfnis)."
## [2893] "Factors: Physical Health Status (PCS, 5 items); Mental Health Status (MCS, 3 items)."
## [2894] "Subscales: Extroversion (E); Neuroticism (N); Callous-Unemotionality (CU); Expressions of Anger (EA or STAXI)."
## [2895] "Factors: Parental Responsibility; Perceived Parent Weight; Perceived Child Weight; Parental Concern about Child Weight; Pressure to Eat; Monitoring; Use of Restriction; Use of Food Rewards; Asian Cultural Feeding Beliefs and Practices."
## [2896] "Subscales: Believing; Bonding; Behaving; Belonging."
## [2897] "Subscales: Training (Practice); Competition. Factors: Goal-Setting; Emotional Control; Automaticity; Relaxation; Self-Talk; Imagery; Attentional Control; Activation; Negative Thinking."
## [2898] "Factors: Reactive Relational; Proactive Relational; Reactive Overt; Proactive Overt."
## [2899] "Subscales: Maternal supportive beliefs; Maternal directive verbal interaction practices."
## [2900] "Subscales: Physical/Appearance; Social/Professional; Psychological; Treatment."
## [2901] "Factors: Self-talk; Emotional control; Automaticity; Goal setting; Imagery; Activation; Relaxation; Attentional control; Negative thinking."
## [2902] "Subscales: Dietary basic psychological needs (BN); Physical Activity basic psychological needs (BN)."
## [2903] "Subscales: Relational; Physical; Verbal."
## [2904] "Factors: Sexual violence (Violencia sexual); Relational violence (Violencia relacional); Verbal-emotional violence (Violencia verbal emotional); Threats (Amenazas); Physical violence (Violencia física)."
## [2905] "Subscales: Family; Peers."
## [2906] "Subscales: Extent; Confidence. Factors: Oppositional behavior related to routine diabetes management; Non-compliance with insulin administration; Impact of diabetes on everyday activities."
## [2907] "Constructs: Corporate bloggers' attitude (CBATT); Corporate bloggers' subjective norm (CBSN); Corporate bloggers' perceived behavioral control (CBPBC); Corporate bloggers' stickiness to blog (CBSB); Corporate bloggers' commitment to blog (CBCB)."
## [2908] "Factors: Sales performance; Threats; Promises; Recommendations; Information exchange; Ingratiation; Inspirational appeals; Trust of the seller firm; Switching costs; Communication frequency; Industry relational norms; Perceived organizational support; Competitive psychological climate."
## [2909] "Subscales: Depression; Anxiety; Stress."
## [2910] "Subscales: Sexual solicitation; Sexualized interactions."
## [2911] "Subscales: Facing the life terminal truly; Different attitudes towards death; Different beliefs about life and death; Responses to depression; Content related to cancer treatment; Life review of cancer patients; Death‐related ethical issues; To leave peacefully."
## [2912] "Subscales: Physical activity-related emotional support; Physical activity-related positive social control; Physical activity-related negative social control; Physical activity-related informational support."
## [2913] "Subscales: Friendly Net Behaviors; Hostile Net Behaviors; Illegal Net Behaviors."
## [2914] "Domains: Predictors; QRPs and Positive or Neutral Practices. Scales: Stress; Motivation; Good science leads to significant results; Practice."
## [2915] "Factors: Motivational; Cognitive; Emotional; Behavioral"
## [2916] "Subscales: Aggression; Management; Exploration; Coordination; Caretaking."
## [2917] "Subscales: Relationship with the partner; Caring for the infant; Maternal social interactions; Establishing a new routine."
## [2918] "Factors: Myth-based attitudes; Organizational tolerance for sexual harassment; Motivation to learn. Knowledge (dimension not included in factor analysis)."
## [2919] "Factors: Ethical conduct; Networking; Clarifying; Recognizing."
## [2920] "Factors: Sleep; Exercise; Marijuana; Servings; Tobacco; Alcohol; Soda/Fast Food."
## [2921] "Factors: Community support and condom self-efficacy; Adult support; Civic engagement."
## [2922] "Factors: Net Bully; Net Power; Net Importance; Net White Lie."
## [2923] "Factors: Emotional Awareness (EA, 6 items); Emotional Management (EM, 7 items); Social Emotional Management (SEM, 7 items); Motivational Dimension (MD, 6 items)."
## [2924] "Dimensions: Recruiting and Selection; Training and Development; Performance Appraisal; Incentives."
## [2925] "Single factor scale."
## [2926] "Factors: Consistent Employee Performance Management; Leader–Member Exchange; Individual Innovation."
## [2927] "Factors: Recruitment; Team development; Team evaluation; Teamwork facilitation."
## [2928] "Factors: Team innovation; Team efficiency; Information processing; Affective team commitment; Recruitment (HR practice); Team development (HR practice); Team evaluation (HR practice); Teamwork facilitation (HR practice)."
## [2929] "Subscales: Negative thought; Positive thought (emotional); Positive thought (cognitive)."
## [2930] "Factors: Secure relationship; Positive model of self; Separation protest."
## [2931] "Factors: Lionization of local foods; Opposition to long-distance food systems; and Communalization of food economies."
## [2932] "Factors: Efficiency (Efficacité tâches); Improvement in tasks (Amélioration tâches); Effective collaboration (Collaboration groupe); Improvement in his working group (Amélioration groupe); Investment at organizational level (Investissement org)."
## [2933] "Subscales: Assault; Manage; Journey; Care; Coordinate."
## [2934] "Subscales: Othering (Anti-Effeminacy and Homo-Negativity); Responsibility (Dependability and Success); Control (Dominance and Toughness)"
## [2935] "Factors: Anticipatory anxiety and physiological symptoms during speech performance; Lack of control during speech performance."
## [2936] "Subscales: Satisfaction with information and counseling; Satisfaction with communication and patient-doctor relationship; Satisfaction with organization."
## [2937] "Factors: Satisfaction with communication; Satisfaction with organization; Satisfaction with information and counseling/advice."
## [2938] "Factors: Career goal progress; Professional ability development; Promotion speed; Remuneration growth."
## [2939] "Subscales: Control; Developmental processes; Parental guidance; Child guidance; Manipulation; Privacy; Positive emotions are valuable; Negative emotions are valuable; All emotions are dangerous; Emotions just are."
## [2940] "Subscales: Appearance Concern; Function and Disability; Prosthesis and Stumps."
## [2941] "Subscales: Self-confidence; Self-efficacy."
## [2942] "Subscales: Health and Daily Life; Attitude and Personal Life; Helping Others; Communication and Emotions; Outside Influences and Interactions."
## [2943] "Factors: Academic Efficacy; Academic Satisfaction; School Connectedness; College Gratitude."
## [2944] "Subscales: Standards; Discrepancy."
## [2945] "Subscales: Physical environment; Learning materials; Modeling; Fostering self-sufficiency; Regulatory activities; Variety of experiences; Acceptance and responsivity."
## [2946] "Subscales: Distress reactions; Punitive responses; Expressive encouragement; Emotion-focused reactions; Problem-focused reactions; Minimizing responses."
## [2947] "Factors: Developing New Subject Matter Knowledge (DN-SMK); Knowing Needs and Students (KN&S); Developing New Pedagogical Content Knowledge (DN-PCK); Mapping Existing Communication Skills in New Curriculum Context (ME-CS)"
## [2948] "Factors: Situated Direct Talk Style; Ongoing Direct Talk Style; Situated Indirect Talk Style; Ongoing Indirect Talk Style."
## [2949] "Factors: Cognitive reappraisal (CR); Expressive suppression (SU)."
## [2950] "Factors: Absorption (A); Orderliness (G); Extraversion (E); Neuroticism (N); Insensitivity (S)."
## [2951] "Factors: Pervasive influence of feelings (PIF); Feelings trigger action (FTA); Lack of follow-through (LFT)."
## [2952] "Factors: Believing and Knowing; Goals and Facilitation; Participation; HIV Biomedical Management; Coping and Self-Regulation."
## [2953] "Subscales: Encouragement/reminders; Active participation."
## [2954] "Factors: Social-Emotional; Academic Enablers; Externalizing Problems; Internalizing Problems."
## [2955] "Factors: Internal management and protection of others; Management of external influence; Notoriety"
## [2956] "Subscales: Self; Family; Relationships; Community; Work. Factors: Adaptability; Awareness; Contentment; Inspiration; Participation; Communication; Care; Receptiveness; Connection; Attentiveness; Understanding; Enrichment; Engagement; Innovation; Accountability; Supportiveness; Sympathy; Sensitivity; Empathy; Confidence."
## [2957] "Subscales: Person-Centered Care; Negative Staff Interactions; Inattentive Care."
## [2958] "Factors: Change success; Communication effectiveness; Personal trust; Affective commitment"
## [2959] "Constructs: Value; (Reverse) Inertia; Visibility; Accessibility; Usefulness of online information sources for guardian information; Future target suitability; Usefulness of information sources related to value for post shoplifting disposal; Usefulness of information sources related to (Reverse) inertia for post shoplifting disposal; Usefulness of online information related to post shoplifting sale/disposal information."
## [2960] "Subscales: Emotional Availability; Nurturance; Protection; Discipline; Play; Teaching; Instrumental Care."
## [2961] "Subscales: Person-Centered Care; Discordant Care."
## [2962] "Subscales: Depression; Anxiety; Academic problems; Interpersonal problems; Physical health problems; Substance-use problems."
## [2963] "Factors: Fit to Community; Fit to Organization; Links to Community; Links to Organization; Community-Related Sacrifice; Organization-Related Sacrifice"
## [2964] "Subscales: Mental illness; Recovery; Stigma."
## [2965] "Subscales: Equal Beauty Stereotypes (EBS); Body Image Perception (BIP); Genital Image Beliefs (GIB); Gender Stereotypes (GS)."
## [2966] "Domains: Negative Affectivity; Detachment; Antagonism; Disinhibition; Psychoticism."
## [2967] "Factors: Compulsion; Distress; Excessiveness; Reassurance."
## [2968] "Factors: Emotional stability; Introversion; Openness to Experience; Conscientiousness; Need for material resources; Need for arousal; Future orientation; Financial knowledge; Retirement involvement—relevance; Retirement involvement—affective; Perceived financial preparedness."
## [2969] "Factors: Regulation of value; Regulation of performance goals; Self-consequating; Environmental structuring; Regulation of situational interest; Regulation of mastery goals"
## [2970] "Subscales: Visible Artifacts; Organizational climate; Espoused values; Basic assumptions."
## [2971] "Subscales: Psychological violence; Physical violence; Verbal violence; Sexual violence."
## [2972] "Factors: Empathy; Intercultural awareness; Intercultural relations; Knowledge difference."
## [2973] "Factors: Shame; Blame; Guilt; Unconcern."
## [2974] "Subscales: Healthy eating; Unhealthy eating."
## [2975] "Subscales: Illness; Independent living; Social relationships; Psychological well-being; Physical senses."
## [2976] "Subscales: Proviolence; Pro illegal acts."
## [2977] "Factors: Satisfaction; Alternatives; Investments; Commitment."
## [2978] "Subscales: Impact on the interaction between health staff and patients; Impact on performing work responsibilities; Impact on the ability to make decisions; Impact on professional career."
## [2979] "Factors: National policy on quantity of teaching; National policy on provision of learning opportunities; National policy on quality of teaching; Student behavior outside the classroom; Teacher collaboration; Providing resources; Partnership."
## [2980] "Subscales (Domains): Support (Connectedness; Hope; Identity; Meaning and purpose; Empowerment); Relationship."
## [2981] "Subscales (Domains): Support (Connectedness; Hope; Identity; Meaning and purpose; Empowerment); Relationship."
## [2982] "Subscales: Adherence; Quality; Participant Responsiveness."
## [2983] "Factors: Mastery; Physical condition; Psychological condition; Affiliation; Appearance; Enjoyment; Competition/ego; Others' expectations."
## [2984] "Factors: Intrinsic; Integrated; Identified; Introjected; Extrinsic; Amotivation."
## [2985] "Factors: Sustainable Spending; Sustainable Skepticism; Sustainable Responsibility; Sustainable Support; Sustainable Mobility"
## [2986] "Factors: Familiarity with intermediary; Disposition to trust; Trust in intermediary; Trust in corresponding collaboration partners; Inquire about; Active request"
## [2987] "Facet 1 Factors: Purchasing habits associated with non-green products; Available information; Price; Perceived difficulties in accessing the proceeds. Facet 2 Factors: Consumer confidence; Consumer loyalty. Facet 3 Factors: Perceived consumer effectiveness; Environmental concern; Entourage's social influence; Institutional influence; Consumers' values."
## [2988] "Factors: Physical Aspects; Trustworthiness; Personal Attention; Policy."
## [2989] "Scales: Geriatricians; Patients; Informal Caregivers"
## [2990] "Subscales: IT integration (ITI); Trust (Tr); Supply chain agility (SCA); Innovativeness (In); Competitive advantage (CA)"
## [2991] "Subscales: Prohibited use; Dangerous use; Dependence; Financial problems."
## [2992] "Factors: Trust; Team Orientation; Backup, Shared Mental Model; Team Leadership."
## [2993] "Subscales: Preoccupation (EMS-P); Diet Gain (EMS-DG); Diet Loss (EMS-DL); Dietary Restraint (EMS-DR); Excessive Attention (EMS-EA); Functional Impairment (EMS-FI); Health Risk (EMS-HR); Compensatory Exercise (EMS-CE); Negative Affect (EMS-NA)."
## [2994] "Subscales: Future; Past-negative; Past-positive; Present-hedonistic; Present-fatalistic; Present-impulsive."
## [2995] "Factors: Perceived dependence (PD); Prohibited (or antisocial) use (PU); Dangerous use (DU)."
## [2996] "Subscales: General Creative Self-Efficacy (GSCE); Computer Self-Efficacy (CSE); Computer-aided Visual Art Self-Efficacy (CVSE)"
## [2997] "Factors: Autonomy-supportive teaching; Controlling teaching."
## [2998] "Subscales: Social Behavior; Academic Behavior; Emotional Behavior."
## [2999] "Subscale: Colorectal Cancer Risk Awareness."
## [3000] "Subscales: Avoidance of OCD Triggers (FAS-AT); Involvement in Compulsions (FAS-IC)."
## [3001] "Domains: Listening effort; Communication; Environment; Emotional; Entertainment; Social."
## [3002] "Components: Physical health; Mental health. Domains: Physical function; Health Perception; Energy; Role limitation-physical; Pain; Sexual function; Social function; Health distress; Overall QOL; Emotional well-being; Role limitation-emotional; Cognitive function; Change in health; Satisfaction with sexual function."
## [3003] "Factors: Work and time constraints; Smokers should quit on their own; Nothing can help in quitting smoking; Disinterest in quitting; Lack of social support to attend; Lack of privacy at programmes; Lack of information and perceived availability."
## [3004] "Subscales: Ironic praise (IP); Ironic criticism (IC); Literal criticism (LC); Literal praise (LP)."
## [3005] "Subscales: Social distance (SDIS); Integration-segregation (INSE); Private rights (PRRT); Subtle derogatory beliefs (SUDB)."
## [3006] "Factors: Paraphasia; Logopenia; Agrammatism; Motor Speech."
## [3007] "Factors: Sensorimotor and Perceptual Alterations; Somatic Detachment and Amnesia; Residual Symptoms; Negative Affect."
## [3008] "Factors: Sensory experience; Affective experience; Learning experience; Sociocultural experience; Behavioral experience; Escapism experience; Prestige experience."
## [3009] "Factors: Dental self-confidence; Social impact; Psychological impact; Aesthetic concern."
## [3010] "Factors: Group connectedness; Mattering; Relational motivation; Family well-being."
## [3011] "Subscales: Picky eaters; Toddler refusal-general; Toddler refusal-textured foods; Older children refusal-general; Stallers."
## [3012] "Factors: Persuadability; Insensitivity."
## [3013] "Factors: Symmetrical reciprocity; Agency; Similarity; Enjoyment; Instrumental aid; Communion"
## [3014] "Factors: Simpatía-related positivity/warmth; Simpatía-related negativity/conflict avoidance."
## [3015] "Subscales: Nurse knowing the patient; Nurse being supportive; Provider knowing the patient and being supportive."
## [3016] "Domains of practice: Direct comprehensive care; Support of systems; Education; Research; Publication and Professional Leadership"
## [3017] "Subscales: Holistic care; Collaborative care; Responsive care"
## [3018] "Factors: Impulse Strength; Negative Expressivity; Positive Expressivity."
## [3019] "Factors: Antisocial behavior; Trivial information overload; Unorganized resources; Social evils; Vulnerable disposition; Situational factors."
## [3020] "Dimensions: Norms condoning men’s violence and control over women; Norms around men as the decision-maker in a couple; Norms around men’s toughness and avoidance of help-seeking; Norms around women’s primary responsibility as family caretaker."
## [3021] "Subscales: Bicultural/Depth; Identify/TCK; Uprooted/marginal; Seek/pursue."
## [3022] "Subscales: Energy; Efficacy; Implication; Workload; Control; Rewards; Community; Fair; Values."
## [3023] "Factors: Perceived organizational support; Perceived pay equity; Symbolic incentive meaning; Psychological empowerment; Work engagement; Innovative behavior."
## [3024] "Scales: Empathy; Spirituality; Wellness; Tolerance."
## [3025] "Factors: Maintaining Traditional Roles and Values; Possessing Cultural Capital; Connecting and Teaching; Providing Praise and Protection from Difficulties."
## [3026] "Factors: Trying & applying own ideas; Model learning; Direct feedback; Vicarious feedback; Anticipatory reflection; Subsequent reflection; Extrinsic intent to learn; Intrinsic intent to learn."
## [3027] "Factors: Proxy Report: General wellbeing and participation; Communication and physical health; School wellbeing; Social wellbeing; Access to services; Family health; Feelings about functioning. Self-Report: General wellbeing and participation; Communication and physical health; School wellbeing; Social wellbeing; Feelings about functioning."
## [3028] "Factors: Social Behaviour; Numbers/Patterns. Subscales: Social Skills; Routines; Switching; Imagination."
## [3029] "Scales (Subscales): Duties (PC; Education; Therapies; Safety and quality; Medical care); Barriers (Lack of PC services; Infrastructure; Patient/family communication; Team communication; Culture/religion; Language; Time); Satisfaction (Patient/family care; Access to medications/supplies; Provider communication; Religious support)."
## [3030] "Domains: Verbal fluency; Hope and positive expectations; Persuasiveness; Emotional expression; Warmth, acceptance, and understanding; Empathy; Alliance bond capacity; Alliance rupture‐repair responsiveness."
## [3031] "Scales: Cross-Domain Work Communication; Cross-Domain Family Communication."
## [3032] "Factors: Not being able to communicate; Losing connectedness; Not being able to access information; Giving up convenience."
## [3033] "Factors: Daily hearing aid use; Hearing aid maintenance and repairs; Advanced hearing aid knowledge."
## [3034] "Subscales: Unfulfilled Wishes; Unresolved Conflict."
## [3035] "Factors; Intimacy; Petting; Sex."
## [3036] "Factors: Red flags; Personal information; Profile features; Personal views; Qualifications; Social."
## [3037] "Subscales: Sustainability; Social; Variety-seeking; Fun; Cost-saving."
## [3038] "Subscales: Difficulty of impulse control; Emotional symptoms."
## [3039] "Factors: Ideal self-congruence; Sensory brand experience; Brand responsiveness; Corporate social responsibility; Brand attachment; Brand loyalty; Resilience to negative information."
## [3040] "Factors: Customer orientation (CO); CRM organization (CRMO); Knowledge management (KM); Technology-based CRM (TB); Employee job satisfaction (EJS); Intention to quit (INQ)."
## [3041] "Subscales: Time Loss; Time Management; Time Commitment."
## [3042] "Factors: Price fairness; Procedural fairness; Outcome fairness; Interactional fairness; Brand trust; Brand experience; Brand enthusiasm; Brand endorsement."
## [3043] "Subscales: Pain (P); Symptoms (S); Activity of Daily Living (ADL); Sport and Recreation Function (Sport/Rec); Hip related Quality of Life (QoL)."
## [3044] "Factors: Financial Institutions and Corporations (FINCORP); Government (GVT); Governing Bodies (GVTBODY); Security Institutions (SECURITY); Knowledge Producers (KNOW); Community (COMMUNITY); Close Relations (CLOSE)."
## [3045] "Subscales: Collective ambition; Common goal; Aligned personal goals; High skill integration; Open communication; Safety; Mutual commitment; Sense of unity; Sense of joint progress; Mutual Trust; Holistic Focus."
## [3046] "Subscales: Self-fulfillment; Group and organizational working; Attaining goals; Leadership; Sustainability and job/family balance."
## [3047] "Subscales: Pain; Function."
## [3048] "Subscales: Participation in gun activities; Gun ownership as an identity; Gun policy preferences; Political participation in the realm of gun policy."
## [3049] "Subscales: Fit; Value; Stigma."
## [3050] "Subscales: Motivation (MT); Self-confidence (SC); Anxiety control (AC); Mental Preparation (MP); Team emphasis (TE); Concentration (C)."
## [3051] "Subscales: Head and neck symptoms; Pain and discomfort; Sleep; Upper limb activities; Walking; Annoyance; Mood; Psychosocial functioning."
## [3052] "Subscales: Teacher-Student Relationships; Peer Support at School; Family Support for Learning; Control and Relevance of School Work; Future Aspirations and Goals."
## [3053] "Subscales: School; Family time; Family cohesion; Psychological health; Parents' worries; Physical limitation; Family activity; Self-confidence."
## [3054] "Subscales: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK); Technological Knowledge (TK); Content Knowledge (CK); Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK); Technological Content Knowledge (TCK); Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)."
## [3055] "Factors: Neuroticism (N); Conscientiousness (C); Agreeableness (A); Openness (O); Extraversion (E)."
## [3056] "Subscales: Academic Efficacy Scale (AES); College Gratitude Scale (CGS); School Connectedness Scale (SCS); Satisfaction with Academics Scale (SAS)."
## [3057] "Factors: Consistency of Interest; Perseverance of Effort."
## [3058] "Factors: Information Seeking; Information Giving; Relationship Building."
## [3059] "Subscales: Auditory; Visual; Motor; Oromotor/Verbal; Communication; Arousal."
## [3060] "Factors: Urinary incontinence (IN); Urinary irritation (IR); Bowel dysfunction (BD); Sexual dysfunction (SD); Hormonal dysfunction (HD)."
## [3061] "Subscales: Influence; Quality; Trust; Information; Discharge."
## [3062] "Subscales: Effective Communication; Mutual Respect and Trust; Shared Philosophy of Care."
## [3063] "Distal Stress: Gender-Related Discrimination (D); Rejection (R); Victimization (V); Gender Identity Nonaffirmation (NA). Proximal Stress: Internalized Transphobia (IT); Negative Expectations for the Future (NFE); Nondisclosure of Gender Identity/History (ND). Resilience: TGNC Pride (P); Community Connectedness (CC)."
## [3064] "Subscales: Fitness; Impartiality; Consistency; Respectfulness; Confidence; Communication."
## [3065] "Factors: Structural; Relational; Cognitive. Variables: Engagement; Organizational commitment; Organizational social capital; Procedural fairness; Satisfaction with working environment; Autonomy; Job significance."
## [3066] "Subscales: Quantity; Quality."
## [3067] "Factors: Positive communication with mother/father/friends; Negative communication with mother/father/friends."
## [3068] "Factors: Vulnerability; Coping; Emotional Intelligence; Subjective Well-Being; Control Locus; Ability."
## [3069] "Subscales: WRAS-White Guilt; WRAS-Negation; WRAS-White Shame."
## [3070] "Factors: Innovative; Dominant; Pace; Friendly; Prestigious; Trendy; Corporate social responsibility; Traditional; Diverse."
## [3071] "Factors: Affective coping; Social coping; Spending impulsivity."
## [3072] "Scales: Smartphone usage; Videogame; Positive attitudes; Negative attitudes; Anxiety/dependence; Technophobia; Technophilia; Persuasive power; Informative power."
## [3073] "Factors: Responsive teaching (General Factor); Proactive management and routines; Cognitive facilitation."
## [3074] "Subscales: Intention; Engagement; Prosocial Reasoning."
## [3075] "Subscales: Intuition as a judgment factor; Intuition as a predictor of the patient’s condition; Intuition as a communication channel."
## [3076] "Subscales: Research process; Knowledge synthesis; Knowledge translation."
## [3077] "Subscales: Somatic; Cognitive; Affective."
## [3078] "Subscales: Informed; Support; Certain; Values; Effectiveness; Patient Rights."
## [3079] "Factors: Value/connections; Meaning; Caring."
## [3080] "Subscales: Mindset; Behavior."
## [3081] "Subscales: Social; Competition; Novelty."
## [3082] "Factors: Compliance with safety regulations and training; Institutional attitudes of workers towards safety; Common use of equipment, materials and substances in laboratories."
## [3083] "Factors: School-mandated learning; Self-initiated learning; Harmonious Internet passion; Obsessive Internet passion."
## [3084] "Subscales: Time pressure; Vigilance demands; Job autonomy; Support; Chronic fatigue; Acute fatigue; Incomplete recovery; Sleep problems."
## [3085] "Subscales: Deviant Peers/Criminal Associates; Positive Attitude Toward Gang Associations; Positive Attitude Toward Violence"
## [3086] "Subtests: Speech Situation Checklist (SSC)–Emotional Reaction (SSC-ER); SSC– Speech Disruption (SSC-SD); Behavior Checklist (BCL); Communication Attitude Test for Adults Who Stutter (BigCAT)."
## [3087] "Factors: Behavioral Self-Blame (BSB); Characterological Self-Blame (CSB)."
## [3088] "Factors: Coordination; Networking; Diversity; Independence"
## [3089] "Scales: Verbal IQ; Performance IQ; Full-Scale IQ. Subtests: Block design; Information; Matrix reasoning; Vocabulary; Picture concepts; Symbol search; Word reasoning."
## [3090] "Subscales: Impact of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Infertility; Hirsutism; Mood."
## [3091] "Subscales: Mastery; Detachment; Relaxation; Control."
## [3092] "Subscales: Concern for changes in oneself and in relationships; Fear for the integrity of the baby; Feelings about oneself; Fear of childbirth; Concerns about the future and ability as a mother."
## [3093] "Subscales: Primary depression symptoms; Mixed symptoms; Secondary depression symptoms."
## [3094] "Subscales: Direct microaggressions; Self-protection from microaggressions; Indirect microaggressions."
## [3095] "Subscales: Attitude towards help-seeking; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Help-seeking intention."
## [3096] "Factors: Leader support; Passive management by exception; Safety climate."
## [3097] "Subscales: Social skill; Attention switching; Attention to detail; Communication; Imagination."
## [3098] "Subscales: Somatization; Demoralization; Anhedonia; Anxiety; Suicidal Tendencies; Cognitive Issues; Activation; Disconstraint; Substance Misuse."
## [3099] "Factors: Clarity; Loudness; Mean Speaking Pitch; Pitch Range."
## [3100] "Subscales: Intrusion; Avoidance; Changes in mood and cognition; Arousal and hyperreactivity."
## [3101] "Factors: Internal beliefs about own disability and the disability community; Anger and frustration with disability experiences; Adoption of disability community values; Contribution to the disability community."
## [3102] "Factors: Overt coercions; Psychological manipulation"
## [3103] "Subscales: Sociability; Disruptive Behavior; Cognitive Incapacity."
## [3104] "Subscales: Negative impact on elder-caregiver/caregiver-family relationships; Caregivers social activity restrictions."
## [3105] "Subscales: Intentional Game Play (IGP); Generalized Game Self-Efficacy (GSE); Enjoyment of Games (EOG); Prone to Game Immersion (PGI)"
## [3106] "Subscales: SMNS–Prescriptive; SMNS–Proscriptive"
## [3107] "Variables: Workplace disclosure; Self-identity; HR management practices; Trust in supervisor; Trust in organization; Heterosexism in the workplace"
## [3108] "Factors: Bullied by others; Belittlement; Work undermined; Verbal abuse; Created fall guy/gal; Undermined others' work; Emotional abuse."
## [3109] "Factors: Standard Assessment; Assessment Belief; Problem Scope."
## [3110] "Subscales: Teaching methods; Teaching content; Teaching attitudes; Teaching organizations; Teaching effects."
## [3111] "Subscales: Cognitive in reading and writing; Metacognitive in reading and writing."
## [3112] "Subscales: Cognitive in listening; Metacognitive in listening."
## [3113] "Subscales: Cognitive in speaking; Metacognitive in speaking."
## [3114] "Subscales: Mastery; Enjoyment; Psychological condition; Physical condition; Appearance; Affiliation; Competition/ego."
## [3115] "Subscales: Peer-Group Interactions; Interactions with Faculty; Faculty Concern for Student Development and Teaching; Academic and Intellectual Development; Institutional and Goal Commitment"
## [3116] "Subscales: Satisfaction with collaboration; Impact of collaboration; Trust and respect."
## [3117] "Subscales: Hope; Optimism; Resilience; Self-efficacy"
## [3118] "Dimensions: Stability in life circumstances; Continuity in upbringing conditions; Adequate examples by parents; Respect; Supportive, flexible childrearing structure; Adequate physical care; Interest; Affective atmosphere; Contact with peers; Education; Adequate examples in society; Social network; Safe direct physical environment; Safe wider physical environment."
## [3119] "Factors: Global health; Quality of relationships; Positive orientation; Depressive mood; Spiritual support; Friendship/intimacy; Career; Sleep disturbance."
## [3120] "Subscales: Autonomy satisfaction; Autonomy frustration; Relatedness satisfaction; Relatedness frustration; Competence satisfaction; Competence frustration"
## [3121] "Subscales: Male-to-female; Male-to-male; Female-to-female; Female-to-male; General violence."
## [3122] "Consultation Factors: Risk and resilience; Trauma-informed practice; School mental health; Collegial support; Student focus; Group focus; Schoolwide focus; Knowledge development; Information sharing; Program evaluation; Program planning; School issues; Personnel issues"
## [3123] "Factors: Cognitive; Somatic; Affective (Depression)."
## [3124] "Subscales: Perception of problem; Training competency; Screening and reporting competency; Policy awareness."
## [3125] "Factors: Separation Anxiety; Fear of Harm Befalling Family Members; School Phobia."
## [3126] "Subscales: Pain; Other symptoms; Function in daily living; Function in sports and recreation (Sport/Rec); Hip-related quality of life."
## [3127] "Factors: Fabrication; Embellishment; Omission."
## [3128] "Subscales: Realistic (R); Investigative (I); Artistic (A); Social (S); Enterprising (E); Conventional (C)"
## [3129] "Factors: Generation; Feeling; Single senses. Subscales: Vividness; Control; Ease; Speed; Duration; Visual; Auditory; Kinaesthetic; Olfactory; Gustatory; Tactile; Emotion."
## [3130] "Awareness Factors: Availability; Task; Social"
## [3131] "Subscales: Autonomy; Competence; Relatedness."
## [3132] "Subscales: Self-Focused Health Motivation; Other-Focused Health Motivation; Introjected Health Motivation."
## [3133] "Subscales: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [3134] "Subscales: Microsystem; Mesosystem; Exosystem; Macrosystem; Chronosystem."
## [3135] "Subscales: Harm/Danger Avoidance (HDA); Personal Responsibility/Blame (PRB); Responsibility to Continue Thinking/Perseverate (RCTP)."
## [3136] "Subscales: Physical; Mental."
## [3137] "Factors: Preoccupation; Loss of control; Affective disturbance; Relationship disturbance."
## [3138] "Subscales: Roles & Routine; Former Relationships; Former Self; Future."
## [3139] "Factors: Absolutism; Multiplism; Evaluativism."
## [3140] "Factors: Absolutism; Multiplism; Evaluativism."
## [3141] "Subscales: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Disturbances in self-organization (DSO). Factors: Re-experiencing (Re); Avoidance (Av); Sense of current threat (Th); Affective dysregulation (AD); Negative self-concept (NSC); Disturbances in relationships (DR)."
## [3142] "Subscales: Nighttime (ICS-N); Daytime (ICS-D)."
## [3143] "Subscales: Thoughts/Behaviour/Emotions (TBE); Importance of Staying in Control (ISC); Body/Bodily Functions (BBF). Test-Retest Reliability: Approximately 33.06 (SD= 7.57) days following their first BALCI administration, a smaller group of participants completed the measure a second time. Retest reliability was examined by conducting zero-order correlations between scores from the first and second completions. The total BALCI and TBE subscale demonstrated adequate retest reliability (r’s = .68); the ISC and BBF subscales demonstrated fair retest reliability (r’s = .57; all p’s < .001)."
## [3144] "Subscales: Primary ontological insecurity; Engulfment; Implosion; Depersonalization."
## [3145] "Subscales: Cognitive; Social; Physical; General Self-Worth."
## [3146] "Subscales: Home alone; Community social."
## [3147] "Subscales: Individual general (Assumption of criminality [AC]; Assumption of intellectual inferiority [AII]; Assumed universality of the Black American experience [AUBAE]; Second-class citizenship [SCC]; Assumption of inferior status [AIS]; Micro-assaults [MA]; Environ micro-aggressions [EM]); Vicarious general; Individual online; Vicarious online; Individual teasing; Vicarious teasing."
## [3148] "Factors: General; Financial rumination-related emotions; Financial rumination-related cognitions; Financial worry-related emotions; Financial worry-related cognitions."
## [3149] "Factors: Privacy concerns; Social support expectations; Social network site disclosure."
## [3150] "Factors: Expressive Suppression; Reappraisal."
## [3151] "Factors: Orientation and Training (OP); Reward and Punishment Systems (RP); Accountability and Responsibility (AR); Decisionmaking (DM); Recruitment and Selection (RS); Policy and Codes (PC)."
## [3152] "Factors: Active Involvement; Purposeful Intent; Affective Value"
## [3153] "Factors: Food favorability; Purchase intention; Healthism."
## [3154] "Model variables: Attention to media; parasocial relationships; fast food attitudes; perceived behavioral control for eating fast food; social norms for eating fast food; fast food acceptability; fast food consumption intentions;"
## [3155] "Factors: Perceived risk (PR); Risk compensation (RC)."
## [3156] "Factors: Performance of Politicians; Ability of Politicians; Conduct of Politicians."
## [3157] "Subscales: Secure attachment; Anxious attachment; Avoidant attachment"
## [3158] "Factors: Energy; Harmony."
## [3159] "Subscales: Unilateral forgiveness; Negotiated forgiveness"
## [3160] "Factors: Sophistication; Competence; Excitement; Sincerity; Convenience."
## [3161] "Scales: Economic value; Relational value; Technical/Functional value; Customer orientation; Competitor orientation; Market performance."
## [3162] "Subscales: Physical; Psychosocial; Communication."
## [3163] "Factors: Tangible Gain Motive; Affective Gain Motive; Self-Enhancement Motive; Other-Orientation Motive; Descriptive Norms Motive; Injunctive Norms Motive."
## [3164] "Factors: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence."
## [3165] "Subscales: Victimization; Bullying."
## [3166] "Subscales: Job satisfaction with intangible benefits; Job satisfaction with tangible benefits."
## [3167] "Factors: Integrated Work Environment; Job Quality; Alienation"
## [3168] "Factors: Harmonious relations; Filial piety; Self-cultivation; Societal stability; Family stability; Virtue behaviour"
## [3169] "Subscales: Characters (C); Performers (P)."
## [3170] "Subscale: General distress symptoms; Obsessive-compulsive symptoms."
## [3171] "Subscales: Contradictory signaling to child; Failure to initiate responsive behavior to infant's cues; Inappropriate responding to infant's cues; Role confusion; Treats child as sexual/spousal partner; Fearful behavior: appears frightened, apprehensive, or deferential in relation to the infant; Disorientation or dissociative behavior; Fearful or disoriented voices; Physical communications; Verbal communications; Inappropriately attributes negative feelings or motivation to infant; Exerts control using objects; Creates a physical distance from infant; Use of verbal communication to maintain distance; Directs infant away from self via toys."
## [3172] "Factors: Informational health literacy; Numeracy health literacy; Communicative health literacy."
## [3173] "Factors: Nutrition specific and weight; Nutrition general and medical treatment; Physical exercise; Blood sugar."
## [3174] "Sections: Outside, route to entrance; Ramps and gradients; Wheel-chair lift; Stairs; Entrance door; Inside; Lift."
## [3175] "Factors: MeatUnhealthful (Factor 1); MeatDislike (Factor 2); MeatUnethical (Factor 3); MeatHabit (Factor 4); NoNeed4Subs (Factor 5); MeatExpensive (Factor 6); NoNeed4Meat (Factor 7)"
## [3176] "Subscales: Work interference with family (WIF); Family interference with work (FIW)."
## [3177] "Domains: Parental dieting; Parental encouragement to diet; Parental criticism of a child’s weight."
## [3178] "Factors: Attitudes; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Intention; Behavior; Consumer ethnocentrism."
## [3179] "Subscales: Emotional score (ES); Daily disturbance score (DDS); Total (Global) score."
## [3180] "Subscales: Symptom; Disability."
## [3181] "Dimensions: Personal-Positive; Personal-Negative; Social-Positive; Social-Negative."
## [3182] "Subscales: Reappraisal; Suppression"
## [3183] "Factors: Telos (leaders’ ethical end, mean, or purpose of behavior); and Ethos (leaders’ personal attitudes and characteristics)"
## [3184] "Factors: Contingent self-esteem (CSE); Exploitativeness (EXP); Self-sacrificing self-enhancement (SSSE); Hiding the self (HS); Grandiose fantasy (GF); Devaluing (DEV); Entitlement rage (ER)."
## [3185] "Subscales: Personality; Cognition; Activities and Interests."
## [3186] "Subscales: Attachment anxiety; Perceived partner gratitude; Global relationship satisfaction."
## [3187] "Variables: Internet usage; Concept-oriented communication; Socio-oriented communication; Self-esteem; eWOM intentions"
## [3188] "Factors: Affect management; Overparenting; Parental monitoring; Digital limit setting; Parental control; Risk aversion; Autonomy granting."
## [3189] "Subscales: Grade 1 MLPQ; Grade 6 MLPQ; Grade 9 MLPQ; Current LPQ."
## [3190] "Factors: Intrapersonal; Interpersonal; Stress management; General mood; Adaptability."
## [3191] "Factors: Psychological (Parents); Pre and Postnatal Causes; Psychological (Child); Environmental & Neurological Causes; Medical Causes; Genetic Causes."
## [3192] "Factors: Emotive dissonance; Emotive effort; Procedural justice; Interpersonal justice; Informational justice; Distributive justice; Satisfaction."
## [3193] "Subscales: Over dependence; Over demandingness; Awfulizing"
## [3194] "Factors: Fit; Link; Sacrifice."
## [3195] "Subscales: Perceived Usefulness; Perceived Ease of Use; Subjective Norm; Experience (Quality); Attitude; Intention To Use the Restaurant Review Website; Intention To Visit Restaurant."
## [3196] "Factors: Information quality; Source credibility."
## [3197] "Factors: Intrinsic motivation; Extrinsic motivation; Harmonious passion; Obsessive passion; Affective attitude; Behavioral intention."
## [3198] "Factors: Contingent Self-Esteem (CSE); Exploitativeness (EXP); Self-Sacrificing Self-Enhancement (SSSE); Hiding the Self (HS); Grandiose Fantasy (GF); Devaluing (DEV); Entitlement Rage (ER)."
## [3199] "Factors: Health fear; Social isolation and avoidance; Doubt about protection; Dissatisfaction with system and procedures; Job stress."
## [3200] "Subscales: Changes in Life Priorities Resulting from SARS; Coping Methods."
## [3201] "Factors: Depression; Biphasic/Hypomania."
## [3202] "Factors: Mania; Depression."
## [3203] "Subscales: Positive orientation (PO); Positive problem-solving skills (PPSS); Rational orientation (RO); Rational problem solving skills (RPSS); Negative orientation (NO); Negative problem-solving skills (NPSS); Impulsivity orientation (IO); Impulsivity problem solving style (IPSS); Withdrawal orientation (WO); Withdrawal problem solving style (WPSS); Problem affect-cognitions for stories-a (PAC-A), Problem-solving actions for stories-a (PSA-A)."
## [3204] "Factors: Evaluation; Work Habit."
## [3205] "Subscales: Cognitive-affective reactions; Healthcare experiences; Systemic response."
## [3206] "Factors: Fine Motor; Gross Motor; Catch and Throw"
## [3207] "Trainer behaviors: Listening/Observing; Supporting; Questioning; Formulating; Managing; Informing; Guiding experiential learning; Self-disclosing; Challenging; Disagreeing; Evaluating; Feeding back; Other. Learner behaviors: Experiencing; Reflecting; Conceptualizing; Planning; Experimenting; Other."
## [3208] "Factors: Supervision Cycle; Supervisee Cycle."
## [3209] "Factors: Feelings about teacher; School enjoyment; Growth mindset; Perceived academic competence."
## [3210] "Dimensions: Sociosexuality; Benevolent Sexism; Wealth Redistribution; Nonconforming Behaviors; Traditional Family Values."
## [3211] "Subscales: Immediate prospective component (PM-i); Retrospective component (PM-r); Delayed prospective component (PM-d)."
## [3212] "Subscales: University affiliation; University support and acceptance; Faculty and staff relations."
## [3213] "Subscales: Tantrum-related impairment; Mood-related impairment."
## [3214] "Scales: Primary Psychopathy Scale (PPI1); Secondary Psychopathy Scale (PP2). Factors: Social Potency; Coldheartedness; Fearlessness; Impulsive Nonconformity; Stress Immunity (PP1); Machiavellian Egocentricity; Blame Externalization; Carefree Nonplanfulness (PP2)."
## [3215] "Subscales: Appreciation; Intellectual engagement; Fortitude; Interpersonal consideration; Sincerity; Temperance; Transcendence; Empathy."
## [3216] "Subscales: Emotional state; Personal value of high performance; Utility of participation in the test; Intended/invested effort; Arousal"
## [3217] "Factors: Tracking; Information; e-Solicitation."
## [3218] "Factors: Social Media Intensity; Centrality (Materialism); Happiness (Materialism); Success (Materialism); Credit Overuse Behavior; Conspicuous Consumption; Impulse Buying."
## [3219] "Factors: Awareness of purpose; Awakening to purpose; Altruistic purpose."
## [3220] "Factors: Physical vanity (PVAN); Achievement vanity (AVAN); Bridging social capital (BSC); Benign disinhibition (BDIS); Toxic disinhibition (TDIS); Privacy concerns (PC)."
## [3221] "Subscales: Social self-efficacy; Emotional self-efficacy; Academic self-efficacy."
## [3222] "Factors: Negative emotionality; Detachment; Psychoticism; Antagonism; Disconstraint."
## [3223] "General Factor: General resilience. Latent First-Order Factors: Academic; Peer; Teacher; Family"
## [3224] "Dimensions: Helplessness; Anxiety Sensitivity; Impulsivity; Sensation Seeking."
## [3225] "Factors: Enhancement; Social; Conformity; Anxiety-Coping; Depression-Coping; Boredom-Coping; Self-Expansion; Performance."
## [3226] "Factors: Problem solving; Forcing; Yielding; Avoiding; Compromising."
## [3227] "Factors: Employment protective behaviors; Employment risk; Job-seeking behavior; Self-control; Self-learning."
## [3228] "Subscales: Without ToM content (N-ToM); ToM content (ToM)."
## [3229] "Factors: Entitativity; Viewing intentions; Purchase intentions; Prototypical focal concurrent sponsor sincerity; Attitude toward property sponsorship; Involvement with sporting events in general; Familiarity with focal concurrent sponsor; Attitude toward focal concurrent sponsor; Familiarity with property; Attitude toward the property; Sponsorship group-property fit; Focal concurrent sponsor-property fit; Second concurrent sponsor-property fit; Third concurrent sponsor-property fit."
## [3230] "Factors: Causal analysis; Understanding; Uncontrollability."
## [3231] "Factors: Assessment and implementation of spiritual care; Professionalization and patient counseling in spiritual care; Attitude toward the patient’s spirituality and communication."
## [3232] "Domains: Training Specific; Training General. Factors: Opportunity to Use (OU); Personal Outcome Negative (PN); Personal Outcome Positive (PP); Supervisor Opposition (SO); Learner Readiness (LR); Personal Capacity (CA); Supervisor Support (SS); Transfer Design (TD); Motivation to Transfer (MT); Content Validity (CV); Peer Support (PS); Transfer Effort Performance Expectation (TP); Resistance to Change (RC); Performance Coaching (PC); Performance Self-efficacy (SE); Performance Outcome Expectations (PO)."
## [3233] "Factors: Vigor (Engagement); Dedication (Engagement); Absorption (Engagement); Service Climate; Job Satisfaction; Commitment; Message Strength."
## [3234] "Factors: Purchasing skills: Technical knowledge; Purchasing skills: Interpersonal skills; Purchasing skills: Managerial skills; Strategic purchasing; Supplier Integration; Restaurant performance."
## [3235] "Domains: Outcomes for my child; Outcomes for our family; Quality of the model; Relationship with the team."
## [3236] "Factors: Teams and Care Continuity; Patient Centeredness; Coordination with External Providers; Coordination with Community Resources."
## [3237] "Factors: Skills; Experience; Person Characteristics; Networks; Market Knowledge; Institution Reputation."
## [3238] "Factors: Hygiene Issues (F1); Parasite/Infection (F2); Food/Environmental (F3); Injury/Viscera (F4)."
## [3239] "Subscales: Prevention; Avoidance; Mask Wearing; Personal Care."
## [3240] "Subscales: H1N1 Beliefs; Negative Vaccination Beliefs."
## [3241] "Subscales: Rumination; Helplessness; Magnification."
## [3242] "Subscales: Vigilance; Buck-Passing; Procrastination; Hypervigilance."
## [3243] "Subscales: Communication and team work; Organisation and care planning; Access to resources; Ward type and layout; Information flow; Roles and responsibilities; Staff training; Equipment design and functioning; Delays."
## [3244] "Domains: Negative emotionality; Positive emotionality; Antagonism; (Dis)constraint; Oddity."
## [3245] "Subscales: Prosocial/Communication Skills; Emotional Regulation Skills; Academic Skills."
## [3246] "Subscales: Valence; Arousal; Morality; Care; Fairness; Ingroup; Authority; Purity."
## [3247] "Factors: A Complete Annihilation; The Severe Pain Of Death; Sins Consequences; Interpersonal Attachments; Possessions Attachments (Love of Estate)."
## [3248] "Factors: System quality; Information quality; Service quality; Product quality; Perceived price; Perceived promotions; Perceived value; User satisfaction; Intention to reuse; Electronic word of mouth."
## [3249] "Factors: Convenience; Design; Trustworthiness; Price; Various food choices; Perceived value; Attitudes towards food delivery apps; Intent to continuously use food delivery apps."
## [3250] "Factors: Anxiety; Depression. Scales: Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2); Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-2)."
## [3251] "Factors: Intimacy for a sub-brand (AINT); Passion for a sub-brand (APASS); Commitment for a sub-brand (ACOMM); Brand love for the corporate brand (BLF); Brand love for the sub-brand (LSUB); Ideal-self-sub-brand congruence (ISC)."
## [3252] "Factors: Information Sharing; Team Support; Learning."
## [3253] "Factors: Sexual orientation specific parental acceptance; Sexual orientation specific parental rejection."
## [3254] "Subscales: Acceptability of PND screening; PND stigma; Treatment efficacy; PND screening readiness; Medication counseling responsibility; Effect on others."
## [3255] "Subscales: Somatic symptoms; Affective-cognitive symptoms."
## [3256] "Factors: Physical impact; Social impact; Survival threat"
## [3257] "Learning support; Instructional support; Peer support; Technical support; Transfer support; Social inclusion; Social participation; Social connectedness; Social capital; Bonding social capital; Bridging social capital."
## [3258] "Factors: Attitudes and beliefs regarding the benefits of vaccination; Attitudes and beliefs regarding the risks of vaccination; Self-efficacy regarding vaccination decision making."
## [3259] "Factors: Perceived Infectibility; Germ Aversion."
## [3260] "Domains: Attention/Orientation; Verbal fluency; Memory; Language; Visuospatial abilities."
## [3261] "Subscales: Requirements; Appeal; Limitations; Fit; Monitoring; Burden; Job security; Organizational support; Feedback."
## [3262] "Factors: Independence and Uniqueness; Interdependence and Harmony."
## [3263] "Subscales: Affective; Behavioral; Cognitive."
## [3264] "Factors: Consequentialism; Formalism"
## [3265] "Factors: Fatigue Improvement; Thought Suppression; Sleep Improvement."
## [3266] "Subscales: The concept of time; Work centrality; Morality; Leisure; Delay of gratification; Hard work; Group dynamics; Commitment to education"
## [3267] "Factors: Time; Work centrality; Morality; Leisure: Delay of gratification; Hard work; Group dynamics; Commitment to education."
## [3268] "Factors: Trust in the authorities; Likelihood of infection; Severity of illness; Exaggeration of the risk; Timeline for the outbreak; Good information."
## [3269] "Subscales: Autonomous Motivation; Controlled Motivation; Amotivation."
## [3270] "Factors: Flirtation; Sexual Storytelling."
## [3271] "Constructs: Street-environment experience; Street-environment suitability; Street audience experience; Overall satisfaction. Factors: Visual aesthetics; Acoustic comfort; Perceived crowding; Street-environment suitability; Emotion; Intellect; Novelty; Place; Interaction; Technique; Overall satisfaction."
## [3272] "Factors: Patient-Provider Connection (PPC); Health Care Environment (HCE); Treatment Expectancy (TE); Positive Outlook (PO); Spirituality (SP); Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)."
## [3273] "Factors: Mexican Sample (Spanish Competency Pressures; English Competency Pressures; Pressure to Acculturate; Pressure Against Acculturation); Turkish Sample (Turkish Competency Pressures; Pressure Against Acculturation; German Competency Pressures; Pressure to Acculturate)."
## [3274] "Factors: Pre-Event (Assessing Risk and Readiness; Accessing Disaster Apps; Mitigating Damages); Event (Correcting; Connecting; Confirming); Post-Event (Assisting; Growing; Storytelling)."
## [3275] "Factors: Notice; Interpret; Accept; Know; Implement."
## [3276] "Factors: Protective behaviors; Infection management behaviors; Detachment."
## [3277] "Factors: Appeal; Challenge; Choice; Meaningfulness; Academic self-efficacy"
## [3278] "Factors: Agentic engagement; Behavioural engagement; Emotional engagement; Cognitive engagement."
## [3279] "Factors: Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Hedonic motivation; Price value; Habit; Usage; Information quality; System quality; Service quality; Satisfaction; Loyalty."
## [3280] "Factors: Ownership affection; Vulnerability affection; Perceived costs of the nonpersonalization; Privacy concerns; Opportunity cost; Reactance"
## [3281] "Factors: Service quality; Information quality; Trust; Systems quality; Intention to use; Satisfaction; Actual usage."
## [3282] "Factors: Media Richness; Active Control; Two-way Communication; Synchronicity; Social Interaction; Shared Understanding; Ganqing; Renqing; Xinren; User Participation."
## [3283] "Factors: Mobile banking use; Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Trust in mobile banking; Social influence."
## [3284] "Constructs: Perceived Effectiveness of Privacy Policy; Perceived Effectiveness of Industry Self-Regulation; Trust towards S-commerce Sites; Word-of-Mouth Communication; Observe Consumer Purchase; Intention of Purchase."
## [3285] "Constructs: Interaction Quality – Attitude (IQA); Interaction Quality – Behavior (IQB); Interaction Quality – Expertise (IQE); Environment Quality - Equipment (EQE); Environment Quality - Design (EQD); Environment Quality - Situation (EQS); Outcome Quality – Punctuality (OQP); Outcome Quality – Tangibles (OQT); Outcome Quality – Valence (OQV); User Satisfaction (US); Inertia (IN); Continuance Intention (CI)."
## [3286] "Factors: Teacher-student interactions; Differentiated instruction."
## [3287] "Subscales: Agentic; Behavioral; Emotional; Cognitive."
## [3288] "Scales: Pain; Physical function; Emotional function; Fatigue; Global health status/quality of life; Nausea/vomiting; Single items on lack of appetite, shortness of breath, constipation, and sleeping difficulties."
## [3289] "Factors: It Wasn’t Really Rape; He Didn’t Mean To; He Didn’t Mean To (intoxication items); She Lied; She Asked For It."
## [3290] "Subscales: Mastery; Meaning in life; Life satisfaction."
## [3291] "Subscales: Experimentation; Comfort; Leadership."
## [3292] "Subscales: Exoneration of the perpetrator (EXO = Exoneration de l’agresseur); Character blame of the victims (PERS = Condamnation de la personnalite de la victim); Behavior blame of the victims (COMP = Condamnation du comportement de la victim); Minimization of the seriousness and extent of the abuse (MIN = Minimisation de la gravite et de l’ampleur des violences)."
## [3293] "Stages: Thematic axis exploration; Object searching; Spatial orientation and location; Intermediaries axis; Bodily organization."
## [3294] "Subscales: Frequency; Duration; Physical Concomitants Behaviors."
## [3295] "Subscales: Personalization; Humanization; Absence of Infantilization; Absence of Victimization."
## [3296] "Subscales: Harm avoidance (HA); Disgust avoidance (DA)."
## [3297] "Factors: Attentional/Operative Functions; Engagement Function; Expressive Function; Instructional Function."
## [3298] "Factors: Disorder-specific factor; Biopsychosocial factor"
## [3299] "Factors: Feelings of not belonging; Perception of being a burden; Social support."
## [3300] "Factors: Vigor (VI); Dedication (DE); Absorption (AB)."
## [3301] "Subscales: Obsessions; Compulsions."
## [3302] "Subscales: Externalizing reactions; Internalizing reactions."
## [3303] "Factors: Anti-phishing self-efficacy (SE); Mobile phishing avoidance motivation (AM); Mobile phishing avoidance behavior (AB); Anticipated regret (AR)."
## [3304] "Factors: Malicious Intent; Benign Neglect."
## [3305] "Factors: Worries; Tension; Joy; Demands"
## [3306] "Domains: Stoic taciturnity (ST); Stoic endurance (SE); Stoic serenity (SS); Stoic death indifference (SDI)."
## [3307] "Factors: Avoidance; Helping; Illegal; Sacrifice."
## [3308] "Subscales: Extending repeating patterns; Translating repeating patterns; Identifying repeating patterns; Extending growing patterns; Translating growing patterns; Identifying growing patterns."
## [3309] "Subscales: Open rejection (OR); Denial of visibility (DV); Gendering performance (GP)."
## [3310] "Subscales: Environmental positive microaffirmation (EP); Interpersonal positive microaffirmation (IP); Environmental negative microaggression (EN); Interpersonal negative microaggression (IN)."
## [3311] "Subscales: Negative biases against childfree people; Necessity of children in being a family and having a happy/meaningful life; Supporting individuals’ choice to be childless."
## [3312] "Subscales: Notice; Emergency; Responsibility; Know; Act."
## [3313] "Subscales: Non-violent discipline; Moderate physical discipline; Severe physical discipline; Psychological discipline; Neglect."
## [3314] "Subscales: Overt; Reactive-overt; Proactive-overt; Relational; Reactive-relational; Proactive-relational."
## [3315] "Subscales: Concentration Problems; Aggressive/Disruptive Behavior; Prosocial Behavior; Emotion Regulation Problems; Internalizing Problems; Family Problems; Family Involvement."
## [3316] "Subscales: Perceived severity; Perceived vulnerability; Fear; Response efficacy; Self-efficacy; Response cost."
## [3317] "Subscales: Perceived severity; Perceived vulnerability; Fear; Response efficacy; Self-efficacy; Response cost."
## [3318] "Subscales: Externalizing; Internalizing; Closeness; Conflict; Isolation; Prosociality."
## [3319] "Subscales: General body appreciation; Body image investment."
## [3320] "Subscales: Intrapersonal; Social; Consider."
## [3321] "Factors: Information; Internalisation-General; Pressures: Internalisation-Athlete."
## [3322] "Subscales: Reciprocity Distress; Reciprocity Avoidance."
## [3323] "Scales: Service leadership (SL); Service technology (ST); Empowerment (EP); Customer orientation (CO); Job satisfaction (JS); Interaction quality (IQ); Visitor satisfaction (SAT); Word of mouth (WOM)."
## [3324] "Constructs: Total Interdependence; Departmental Power; Cognitive Trust; Affective Trust; Dysfunctional Conflict; Perceived Relationship Effectiveness."
## [3325] "Subscales: Active Problem-focused Coping, Alcohol-drug Disengagement, Focus on and Venting of Emotions, Seeking Social Support, Humor, Turning to Religion, Denial, Restraint Coping, and Acceptance and Coping."
## [3326] "Domains: Initial cognitive assessment; Elder abuse questions; Judgment of patient's ability to report abuse; Physical Assessment"
## [3327] "Factors: New product performance; Technological newness; Market newness; Market knowledge breadth; Market knowledge tacitness"
## [3328] "Factors: Self-awareness of the value of life; Application of coping strategies; Striving to live a normal and satisfied life."
## [3329] "Subscales: Visual comprehensibility; Affordability; Adaptability; Assimilationist culture; Collective needs; Interpersonal promotion; Social capital; Atomized distribution; Flexible payment forms; Poverty."
## [3330] "Factors: Job; Career, Calling; Social embeddedness; Busyness."
## [3331] "Factors: Cognitive reappraisal (CR); Expressive suppression (ES)."
## [3332] "Dimensions: Social Adaptation Status (SAS); Psychological Well-Being (PWB)."
## [3333] "Factors: Impulsivity control (Controlo da impulsividade); Restraint (Refreamento)."
## [3334] "Scales: Life satisfaction; Sense of control; Family closeness; Social connection; Social comparison orientation."
## [3335] "Factors: Comprehension; Perceived integration."
## [3336] "Domains: Knowledge; Support in art-therapy; Your perceptions and experiences; From yesterday to tomorrow."
## [3337] "Factors: Ethical leadership; Cooperative conflict; Competitive conflict; Turnover intentions; Trust."
## [3338] "Subscales: Care scale; Control scale."
## [3339] "Subscales: Innovator role; Broker role; Deliverer role; Monitor role; Developer role; Integrator role."
## [3340] "Factors: Effort (Esfuerzo); Persistence (Persistente); Preparation (Preparación); Unit (Unidad); Skill (Habilidad)."
## [3341] "Factors: Dynamic; Static."
## [3342] "Factors: Skills of daily life; Motor skills; Personal Life Skills; Social Skills."
## [3343] "Subscales: Work demands; Family demands."
## [3344] "Subscales: Professional self-efficacy; Relational self-efficacy; Self-efficacy in articulation with families."
## [3345] "Factors: Engagement; Collegiality; Civility."
## [3346] "Subscales: Calling (Chamamento); Career (Carreira); Job (Employement, Emprego)."
## [3347] "Subscales: Focusing; Flexibility."
## [3348] "Subscales: Impulsivity (IMP); Restraint (RES)."
## [3349] "Subscales: Depressive; Cyclothymic; Hyperthymic; Irritable; Anxious-cognitive; Anxious-somatic."
## [3350] "Subscales: Depressive; Cyclothymic; Hyperthymic; Irritable; Anxious-Cognitive; Anxious-Somatic."
## [3351] "Subscales: Hostility; Inferiority."
## [3352] "Scales: Localization of pain; Nature of pain; Activity limitations (Factor 1); Psychosocial Aspects (Factor 2)."
## [3353] "Factors: Everyday Life; Crisis Management; Current Issues. Subscales: Action Regulation; Relaxation; Social support."
## [3354] "Factors: Empathy (Empatia partidas); Alleviate suffering (Aliviar el sufrimiento partidas)."
## [3355] "Factors: Giving back; Tribal family support; Identity; Institutional support."
## [3356] "Factors: French and the Sciences; History and Geography."
## [3357] "Subscales: Accountability; Preference for lecture or team-based learning; Student satisfaction."
## [3358] "Clusters: Attitude toward creativity; Attitude toward work and feelings related to work environment; Creativity in the occupational therapy process; Attitude toward clients and their influence on the therapist’s creativity; Factors that influence creativity."
## [3359] "Factors: Dependency-oriented psychological control (DPC); Achievement-oriented psychological control (APC)."
## [3360] "Factors: Motricity of Chewing; Food Selectivity; Mealtime Skills; Inappropriate Mealtime Behavior; Inflexible Eating-Related Behavior; Hostility towards Food; Food Allergies and Intolerance."
## [3361] "Factors: Stereotyping; Culpability; Devaluation; Discrimination; Separation."
## [3362] "Subscales: Objective strain (fardeau objectif); Subjective internalized strain (fardeau subjectif internalisé); Subjective externalized strain (fardeau subjectif externalisé)."
## [3363] "Factors: Clinical; Health; Educational; Organizational; Social; Psychological Assessment, Teaching and Research; Traffic; Sport; Legal; Neuropsychology."
## [3364] "Factors: Intimate Rejection; Public Rejection."
## [3365] "Factors: Beliefs about the existence of prejudice racial (Crenças sobre a existência do preconceito racial); Beliefs about differences ethnic-racial (Crenças sobre as diferenças étnico-raciais)."
## [3366] "Factors: Game knowledge; Decision-making; Pressure; Communication."
## [3367] "Factors: SI = social inclusion; SD = self-determination; EW = emotional wellbeing; PW = physical wellbeing; MW = material wellbeing; RI = rights; PD = personal development; IR = interpersonal relationships."
## [3368] "Factors: Lack of intentionality (Activación); Efficiency (Effciencia); Control."
## [3369] "Factors: Home context (Contexto de casa); School context (Contexto da escola); Community context (Contexto da comunidade)."
## [3370] "Factors: Filial piety belief; Destiny belief; Perceived stigma."
## [3371] "Factors: Conduct and emotions; Healthy habits (Behavior Topics section); Behavior change; Psychoeducation (Intervention approach section); Multimedia resources; Auxiliary care; Routine care (Delivery methods section)."
## [3372] "Subscales: Risky exposure; Transient rule violations; Driver misjudgements; Driver mood; Vehicle overcrowding; Personal seatbelt use; Substance consumption."
## [3373] "Subscales: Information seeking; Evaluation."
## [3374] "Subscales: Critical racial reflection; Critical SES reflection; Competence; Confidence; Character; Caring; Connection."
## [3375] "Subscales: Functional impulsivity; Urgency; Lack of perseverance; Lack of premeditation."
## [3376] "Subscales: Pre-volitional Self-efficacy (PS); Maintenance self-efficacy (MS); Self-efficacy for relapse recovery (SRR)."
## [3377] "Subscales: Direct goal self-efficacy; Direct goal collective efficacy; Indirect goal collective efficacy; Indirect goal self-efficacy."
## [3378] "Factors: Perceived Outcomes; Symbolic; Instrumental; Shopping trips; Leisure trips; Child-related trips; Driving habits; Descriptive norms."
## [3379] "Subscales: Childhood Nonverbal Communication Scale-1 (CNCS-1); Childhood Nonverbal Communication Scale-2 (CNCS-2)."
## [3380] "Factors: Management of time and effort; Complex cognitive strategy use; Simple cognitive strategy use; Contacts with others; Academic thinking."
## [3381] "Subscales: Psychogenic and external factors; Pregnancy and environmental treatment; Genes and drugs; Diet; Brain abnormalities."
## [3382] "Subscales: Frequency; Problems."
## [3383] "Subscales: Personal Self-Care; Professional Self-Care."
## [3384] "Subscales: Team Climate; Safety Climate; Leadership."
## [3385] "Subscales: Honesty; Conscientiousness; Principle."
## [3386] "Factors: Perfectionistic Strivings (PS); Perfectionistic Demands (PD); Perfectionistic Concerns (PC)."
## [3387] "Factors: Rumination; Distractibility."
## [3388] "Factors: Repetitive Behavior; Communication; Atypical Behavior; Social Reciprocity; Peer Interaction."
## [3389] "Factors: Truth; Control."
## [3390] "Subscales: Positive affect (PANAS-P); Negative affect (PANAS-N)."
## [3391] "Factors: Religious beliefs; Spiritual beliefs."
## [3392] "Subscales: Rumination; Distraction."
## [3393] "Subscales: Irrational beliefs; Rational beliefs."
## [3394] "Subscales: Abuse; Violence; Control."
## [3395] "Subscales: Acceptance and Committed action; Non-entanglement; Non-struggling."
## [3396] "Factors: Emotional experience; Actual self (Self-concept); Ideal self (Self-concept); Lifestyle; Brand loyalty."
## [3397] "Constructs: Economic value (EC); Convenience value (CV); Emotional value (EM); Emotional aesthetic (EA); Social mindedness (SM); Repurchase intention (RI); Satisfaction (SA)."
## [3398] "Factors: Online compulsive buying; Excessive social networking site usage; Power-prestige; Distrust; Anxiety."
## [3399] "Subscales: Sexual motivation; Poor management; Attention seeking; Negative emotion and unstable mental health; Lacks education; Need for action; Increase awareness."
## [3400] "Factors: Impulse control; Resisting distractions; Overcoming internal resistance"
## [3401] "Subscales: Intrusion and strength; Vividness."
## [3402] "Subscales: Commitment; In-depth exploration; Reconsideration of commitment."
## [3403] "Subscales: Basic self-care and routine activities; Complex or multistage daily activities; Social and leisure activities."
## [3404] "Subscales: Home numeracy activities; Home numeracy resources."
## [3405] "Subscales: Ability to connect; Ability to question; Ability to express."
## [3406] "Factors: Innovativeness; Optimism; Technology Readiness; Visual Appeal; Facilitating Conditions; Perceived Usefulness; Perceived Ease of Use; Augmented Reality Attitude; Intention to Use; Word of Mouth."
## [3407] "Constructs: Perceived informativeness (PI); Perceived source credibility (PSC); Perceived persuasiveness (PP); Perceived utilitarian value (PUV); Perceived hedonic value (PHV); Intention to believe rebuttal (ITB); Intention to share rebuttal (ITS)."
## [3408] "Subscales: Physical Layout; Youth Activities; Physical (Dis)Order; Adult Activities; Social (Dis)Order subscale."
## [3409] "Factors: Interoceptive urges and visceral pain; Interoceptive experiences and bodily pain."
## [3410] "Factors: Acoustic Attributes; Forceful Attributes; Instrumental Attributes; Mellow Attributes; Energetic Attributes; Easy-Listening Attributes."
## [3411] "Factors: Immediate Consequences; Future Consequences"
## [3412] "Scales: Internal networking; External networking. Factors: Building; Maintaining; Using."
## [3413] "Factors: Constructivist beliefs in career decision-making-satisficing decision; Constructivist beliefs in career decision-making-agentic creation."
## [3414] "Subscales: Psychological Abuse; Coercive Control; Physical Abuse; Threatened and Escalated Physical Violence; Sexual Assault, Intimidation, and Coercion"
## [3415] "Factors: Harm; Intent; Frequency; Power Differential."
## [3416] "Factors: Career concern; Career control; Career curiosity; Career confidence."
## [3417] "Subfactors: Internalized sexual objectification; Commenting about women’s bodies; Looking down on unattractive women."
## [3418] "Factors: General factor of perceptions; Perceptions of integration between face-to-face and online learning; Perceptions of the online contributions; Perceptions of the online workload."
## [3419] "Subscales: Programming affiliation; Programming engagement; Programming actualization; Programming goal setting."
## [3420] "Factors: Ease of e-assessment system use; Experience with the e-assessment system; Involvement while completing the CDT."
## [3421] "Factors: Beneficial social relationships; Positive reinforcement; Support; Encouragement; Role model."
## [3422] "Factors: Value; Structure; Sound"
## [3423] "Factors: Fear of disability following a relapse; Fear of the psychological and physiological consequences of a relapse; Limitations resulting from fear."
## [3424] "Subscales: Individual Level; Group Level; Organizational Level; Individual Aspects; Leadership Aspects; Internal Aspects of the Team; Team Management Aspects; Company Cultural Aspects; Management and Creativity Control Aspects; Creativity Structural Aspects."
## [3425] "Subscales: Commitment; In-depth exploration; Reconsideration of commitment."
## [3426] "Subscales: Visual; Acoustic; Haptic; Olfactory; Gustatory."
## [3427] "Subscales: Mental Health; Study Behaviors; Trauma."
## [3428] "Scales: Completeness of the task; Room for maneuver; Variability; Lack of information; Information overload; Lack of role clarity; Skill deficiencies; Insufficient demand; Social pressures by customers; Emotional dissonance; Stressful working hours; Unlimited working hours; Labor intensity; Interruptions; Lack of communication options; Social support through colleagues; Social stressors through colleagues; Social support by superiors; Feedback and recognition; Environmental pollution (Overall index)."
## [3429] "Subscales: Cultural awareness ability; Cultural action ability; Cultural resources application ability; Self-learning cultural ability."
## [3430] "Subscales: Attractiveness; Partner."
## [3431] "Subscales: School Trust; Social Belonging; Evaluation Anxiety; Self-Complexity; External Locus of Control; Identification with School."
## [3432] "Subscales: Student experience of the workshops; Value of the different types of learning materials; Experience of the peer tutors; Experience of students that received peer tutoring."
## [3433] "Factors: Proactive customer orientation; Responsive customer orientation; Perceived value; Word-of-mouth; Cross-buying."
## [3434] "Subscales: Relationship-oriented conflict; Task-oriented conflict; Process-oriented conflict."
## [3435] "Subscales: Pain/function; Mood/sedation; Compliance."
## [3436] "Subscales: Letter-sound knowledge; Phonological skills; Decoding; Orthographic discrimination; Lexical decision."
## [3437] "Subscales: Reactive helping behaviors; Proactive helping behaviors."
## [3438] "Factors: Fair and supportive relationship with teachers; School satisfaction; Achievement values; Failure anticipation"
## [3439] "Factors: Beliefs about performing exercise regimen (BPE); Beliefs about following food recommendations and insulin administration and medication (FMR); Beliefs about learning and following from others (LFO)."
## [3440] "Factors: Difficulty prioritizing self-care; Guilt/worry."
## [3441] "Factors: Benefit; Satisfaction; Guidance."
## [3442] "Factors: Affect-Driven Training; Training Amount; Training Against Medical Advice; Body Dissatisfaction."
## [3443] "Factors: Online Self-Presentation; Appearance-Related Activity; Appearance Comparison."
## [3444] "Engagement Factors: Emotional; Cognitive; Behavioral; Social. Disengagement Factors: DEmotional; DCognitive; DBehavioral; DSocial."
## [3445] "Factors: Avoidance of Stimuli That Provoke Negative Affectivity (ANA); Escape From Aversive Social and/or Evaluative Situations (EAS); Pursuit of Attention (PA); Pursuit of Tangible Reinforcement (PR)."
## [3446] "Variables: Self-congruity (SELFCON); Nation Brand (NB); Destination Brand (DB); Intention to create positive content in social media about Columbia (ICPC)."
## [3447] "Factors: Esprit of Profession, Organization & Workgroup (EPOW); Leader Facilitation & Support (LFS); Cohesion, Clarity & Objectivity of System (CCOS); Job Challenge, Variety & Feedback (JCVF)."
## [3448] "Subscales: Religious beliefs/Practices; Social support."
## [3449] "Subscales: Acquisition; Difficulty discarding; Clutter."
## [3450] "Subscales: Clutter; Difficulty Discarding; Acquisition."
## [3451] "Factors: Being with nature; Self-growth; Learning; Relaxation; Satisfaction."
## [3452] "Subscales: Activity; Symptom."
## [3453] "Subscales: Activity/Participation; Body functions (Symptoms)."
## [3454] "Factors: Capability of advertising to involve customers and catch their attention (Satisfaction with advertising); Wearability and image communicated through the product itself (Satisfaction with wearability and image communicated by the use of the product); Quality of the good even in relation with its price (Satisfaction with quality in relation with price)."
## [3455] "Domains: Sleep; Autonomic symptoms; Fatigue; Emotional well-being; Stigma; Activities of daily life; Sensory symptoms."
## [3456] "Domains: Physical and Mental Health; Locomotion; Body Composition; Functionality; Activities of Daily Living; Leisure activities; Fears."
## [3457] "Factors: Behavior with respect toward others; Self in relation to others; Self-value; Perceived value from others."
## [3458] "Subscales: Benign Schadenfreude; Malicious Schadenfreude"
## [3459] "Subscales: Positive perception of assessment center; Job satisfaction; Organizational commitment; Transformational leadership; Transactional leadership; Job stress."
## [3460] "Subscales: Home Integration; Social Integration; Productivity; Electronic Social Networking."
## [3461] "Subscales: Attractiveness; Competence; Dominance; Extroversion; Likability; Threat; Trustworthiness."
## [3462] "Factors: Child as an empty box; Child without agency; Competent child."
## [3463] "Subscales: Support for caring; Caring choice; Caring stress; Money matters; Personal growth; Sense of value; Ability to care; Carer satisfaction."
## [3464] "Subscales: Self-care; Sphincter control; Transfers; Locomotion; Communication; Psychosocial adjustment; Cognitive functioning."
## [3465] "Subscales: Cognitive/psychosocial (PCAT-Cog); Complex Physical (PCAT-Phys)."
## [3466] "Subscales: Difficulty; Relevance; Anxiety; Enjoyment; Self-efficacy; Context dependency; Future."
## [3467] "Factors: Emotional well-being (EW); Physical well-being (PW); Material well-being (MW); Self-determination (SD); Interpersonal relationships (IR); Social inclusion (SI); Personal development (PD); Rights (RI)."
## [3468] "Subscales: Adult control of foods consumed; Bribing with sweet foods; Supportive adult roles at mealtime; Autonomy supporting cues; Autonomy undermining cues; Social comparisons; Autonomy promoting beliefs; Coercive beliefs; Concern-based control."
## [3469] "Factors: Social interaction; Negative emotions; Leisure and the outdoors; Independence; Physical health; Positive emotions"
## [3470] "Subscales: Autonomous Motivation; Controlled Motivation; Amotivation."
## [3471] "Subscales: Overall CSR performance; Discretionary CSR; Ethical CSR; Legal CSR; Economic CSR; Organization-employee relationships; Control mutuality; Trust; Commitment; Satisfaction; Perceived CSR-culture fit."
## [3472] "Factors: Harm; Offense; Poor Character; Moralism."
## [3473] "Subscales: Compulsion-associated; Situation-associated; Impulse-associated; Relational-associated; Lability-associated; Control-associated."
## [3474] "Subscales: School Connectedness; Family Relations; Academic Success; Sporting Interest; Peer Acceptance; Acceptance of Appearance."
## [3475] "Subscales: Overall hand function; Activities of daily living (ADL); Pain; Work performance; Aesthetics; Satisfaction."
## [3476] "Subscales: Planning, organization, and curriculum coverage; Teaching mindfulness; Guiding mindfulness practices; Management of the learning environment."
## [3477] "Subscales: Conscientiousness; Transformational; Contingent reward; Management-by-exception active; Management-by-exception passive; Laissez-faire; Safety attitudes; Safety norms; Safety control; Safety motivation."
## [3478] "Subscales: Psychological functioning; Genitalia; Social gender role recognition; Physical and emotional intimacy; Chest; Other secondary sex characteristics; Life satisfaction."
## [3479] "Dimensions:Sleep onset; Sleep continuity; Sleep quality; Dreams; Breathing; Parasomnias; Daytime sleepiness; Energy; Sleep offset; Impact—cognitive; Impact—activities; Impact—affect or behavior."
## [3480] "Subscales: Engagement; Enjoyment; Anxiety; Intention."
## [3481] "Subscales: Fear of Sleep; Vigilant Behaviors."
## [3482] "Subscales: Perceived procedural justice effectiveness; Procedural justice interaction; Communication skills; Citizen focus."
## [3483] "Subscales: Bond to partner; Bond to community; Homeownership; Residential Mobility."
## [3484] "Subscales: Transgression; Artistic quality; Antithetical; Ideal beauty; Taboo."
## [3485] "Factors: Thwarted belongingness (TB); Perceived burdensomeness (PB)."
## [3486] "Subscales: Competence; Autonomy; Relatedness."
## [3487] "Subscales: Body Functions and Structures; Activities and Participation; Environmental Factors; Personal Factors."
## [3488] "Factors: Fear of loss of control; Fear of darkness"
## [3489] "Factors: Intrinsic Religious Orientation (IRO); Quest Religious Orientation (QRO); Extrinsic Religious Orientation (ERO)."
## [3490] "Subscales: Cognition; Consciousness; Self-Awareness and Presence; Somatization; Transitivism/Demarcation."
## [3491] "Subscales: Condensed Inner Speech; Dialogic Inner Speech; Other People in Inner Speech; Evaluative/Motivational Inner Speech."
## [3492] "Subscales: Dialogic (D); Evaluative/critical (E); Other people (O); Condensed (C); Positive/regulatory (P)."
## [3493] "Subscales: Task conflict; Relationship conflict; Contractual control; Contractual coordination; Contractual adaptation; Owner's dependence on the contractor; Contractor's dependence on the owner."
## [3494] "Subscales: Helpful Beliefs; Unhelpful-Individual Beliefs; Unhelpful-Social Beliefs."
## [3495] "Subscales: Predisposition to auditory hallucinations; Predisposition to visual hallucinations."
## [3496] "Subscales: Identifying; Decision-Making; Ethical Principles and Law; Dilemma and Responsibilities."
## [3497] "Subscales: Rumination; Magnification; Helplessness."
## [3498] "Constructs: System quality; Information quality; Perceived enjoyment; Perceived fee; User satisfaction; Intention to reuse; Learning effectiveness."
## [3499] "Subscales: Speech; Spatial; Quality."
## [3500] "Subscales: Auditory hallucinations (AH); Visual hallucinations (VH); Total hallucinations (TotH); Delusions (D); Current; Lifetime. Factors: Impact on functioning; Incidence; Illusions; Insight."
## [3501] "Factors: Personal insults; Work-related blame; Professional understating; Unreasonable work-related demands; Work-related malpractice."
## [3502] "Scales: Measure of skill in Supported Conversation; Measure of Participation in Conversation."
## [3503] "Subscales: Acknowledging competence; Revealing competence; Interaction; Transaction."
## [3504] "Subscales: Complexity (CRG); Affect Tone character (ARGc); Affect Tone person (ARGp); Investment (IRG); Agency-situation (AGCs); Agency-reaction (AGCr); Agency-explanation (AGCe)."
## [3505] "Subscales: Beliefs about inclusion; Feelings about inclusion."
## [3506] "Factors: Intention to Consult with Others; Intention to Implement Curriculum Changes."
## [3507] "Subscales: Inclusive Instruction; Collaboration; Managing Behaviour."
## [3508] "Factors: Efficacy to use Inclusive Instructions; Efficacy in Collaboration; Efficacy in Managing Behaviour."
## [3509] "Subscales: Bond to economic institution; Number of economic institutions; Number of economic sectors; Number of changes in economic institutions; Number of changes in economic sectors; Bond to executive position; Number of executive positions; Number of economic sectors for executive positions; Number of changes in executive positions; Number of changes in the economic sector of executive positions."
## [3510] "Factors: Internalizing/Externalizing Symptoms (Depression; Social Anxiety; Performance Anxiety; Agoraphobia/Panic; Separation Anxiety; Somatic Complaints; Aggression; School Aversion/Attractive Alternatives); Emotional Distress due to Problems in the School or Family Context (Problems with Teachers; Dislike of the Specific School; Problems with Peers; Problems Within the Family; Problems with Parents)."
## [3511] "Factors: Appearance; Competence; Attention/Interpersonal Success."
## [3512] "Factors: Dominance/Control; Sympathy/Perspective-taking; Humanity/Integrity; Rapport."
## [3513] "Factors: Self-connectedness; Self-doubt; Others-oriented; Openness to share."
## [3514] "Subscales: Cognitive; Emotional; Behavioral; Negative Consequences-Health; Negative Consequences–Impairment in social or academic functioning; Differential Diagnosis."
## [3515] "Factors: Repetitive (RE); Compulsive (CG)."
## [3516] "Subscales: Compulsive grazing; Repetitive eating."
## [3517] "Factors: Harmonious Passion; Obsessive Passion; Inhibited Passion."
## [3518] "Factors: Conduct Problems; Hyperactivity; Attention Problems."
## [3519] "Subscales: Negative Emotions; Positive Feelings; Uncertainty; Privacy Concerns."
## [3520] "Factors: Vigor; Dedication; Absorption."
## [3521] "Factors: Vigor; Dedication; Absorption."
## [3522] "Factors: Critical member capacity; Equal relations; Democratic network governance; Empowering coordination."
## [3523] "Subscales: Relatedness (with the teacher); Relatedness (with peers); Growth needs; Existence needs."
## [3524] "Factors: Proximity seeking; Positive model of God; Positive Model of Self; Separation Protest."
## [3525] "Subscales: Learning climate; Classroom management; Clarity of instruction; Activating teaching; Teaching learning strategies; Differentiation."
## [3526] "Factors: Safe and stimulating learning climate; Efficient classroom management; Clear instruction; Activating learning; Adaptation of teaching; Teaching–learning strategy"
## [3527] "Subscales: Sensory sensitivity; Lack of interest food or eating; Fear of aversive consequences; Overall severity."
## [3528] "Subscales: Mood volatility/excitement; Social vitality."
## [3529] "Dimensions: Strong involvement; Restricted involvement; Uninvolved."
## [3530] "Factors: Emotional Dysregulation; Dissocial; Intimacy Problems; Compulsivity. Scales: Submissive; Cognitive Distortion; Identity Problems; Affective Liability; Stimulus Seeking; Compulsivity; Restricted Expression; Callousness; Oppositionality; Intimacy Problems; Rejection; Anxiousness; Conduct Problems; Suspiciousness; Social Avoidance; Narcissism; Insecure Attachment; Self-Harm."
## [3531] "Subscales: Mental Disorder; Time Management Disorder."
## [3532] "Subscales: Visibility in Society; Interpersonal."
## [3533] "Subscales: Mistrust of arguments from authority; Open-mindedness; Scepticism; Rationality; Objectivity; Suspension of belief; Curiosity"
## [3534] "Subscales: Sustainability orientation; Green supplier involvement as a knowledge source; Green supplier involvement as a co-creator; Green knowledge-processing capability; Green Research and Development (R&D) capability; Green product/process innovation."
## [3535] "Factors: Perceived Prejudice; Closet Symptoms; Negative Labels."
## [3536] "Subscales: Ethical consumption; Guilt; Interdependent self-construal; Independent self-construal."
## [3537] "Factors: Preoccupation; Overuse; Immersion; Social isolation; Interpersonal conflicts; Withdrawal."
## [3538] "Subscales: Washing; Checking; Ordering; Obsessing; Hoarding; Neutralizing."
## [3539] "Factors: Empathy; Honesty; Respect; Courage."
## [3540] "Factors: Nation responsibility; Nature responsibility; Others responsibility; Organization responsibility."
## [3541] "Factors: Intimacy; Passion; Commitment."
## [3542] "Subscales: Prominence; Prospectus; Program; Price; People; Premium; Promotion; Corporate brand (or university brand); Product brand (or graduate degree brand/MBA brand)."
## [3543] "Scales: Paternal invalidation; Maternal invalidation."
## [3544] "Factors: Open communication about the general nature of the supervisory relationship; Managing disagreement and discomfort. Scales: Frequency; Supervisee willingness; Perceived supervisor willingness."
## [3545] "Factors: Parents' beliefs in the importance of early math and confidence helping their child learn math; Parents' enjoyment and confidence helping their child learn literacy."
## [3546] "Factors: Food Available; Food Present; Food Taste."
## [3547] "Factors: Restrictive/critical messages (RCM); Pressure-to-eat messages (PEM)."
## [3548] "Factors: Unconditional Permission to Eat (UPE); Eating for Physical Rather than Emotional Reasons (EPRER); Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues (RHSC); Body-Food Choice Congruence (BFCC)."
## [3549] "Subscales: Cultural competence; Self-management; Social capacity; Informational fairness; Interpersonal fairness; Recovery self-efficacy; Organizational recovery system; Service recovery performance."
## [3550] "Domains: Client participation in decision-making and goal-setting; Client-centred education; Evaluation of outcomes from client’s perspective; Family involvement; Emotional support; Co-ordination/continuity; Physical comfort."
## [3551] "Factors: Client participation in decision-making and goal-setting; Client-centered education; Outcome evaluation from client's perspective; Family involvement; Emotional support; Physical comfort; Continuity/coordination."
## [3552] "Factors: Reasons for leaving regular school; Hopes for special school; Decision-making process. Subscales: Learning barriers; Emotional strain; Exclusionary school culture; Well-being; Learning; Personhood; Difficulties; Paternalism."
## [3553] "Factors: Complex Skills; Communication; Genetic Testing; Basic Psychosocial Skills; Genetic Counseling Process; Information Gathering."
## [3554] "Factors: Participation in the local community; Family/friends and neighborhood connections; Feelings of trust and safety; Value of life; Tolerance of diversity; Pro-activity in a social context."
## [3555] "Domains: Activities of daily living; Mobility; Social participation; Assistance; Emotional effects."
## [3556] "Subscales: Family conflict; Social support; Sexual minority stress; Acculturative stress; Non-specific minority stress; Idioms of distress (emotional/somatic); Idioms of distress (suicidal actions); Cultural sanctions."
## [3557] "Subscales: Unstable sense of reality; Ideas of reference/paranoia; Sensitivity to sensory experiences; Other."
## [3558] "Subscales: Therapist Emotional Experiences; Therapist Judgments; Therapist Reactions in Treatment."
## [3559] "Subscales: Diligence; Integrity; Self-Preservation; Self-Interest."
## [3560] "Factors: Strength; Body Fat; Physical Activity; Endurance/Fitness; Sport Competence; Coordination; Health; Appearance; Flexibility; General Physical Self-Concept; Self-Esteem."
## [3561] "Factors: Activity; Appearance; Body Fat; Coordination; Endurance; Esteem; Flexibility; General Physical; Health; Sport; Strength."
## [3562] "Factors: Perceptual-motor skills; Safety skills."
## [3563] "Factors: Hostile aggression and Revenge; Aggressive warnings."
## [3564] "Factors: Self-serving, altruistic ideological motives (SSAIM); Self-serving, altruistic pedagogical motives (SSAPM); Egoistic motives."
## [3565] "Subscales: Attitudes; Knowledge; Behavior."
## [3566] "Factors: Prosocial behavior toward teammates; Prosocial behavior toward opponents; Antisocial behavior toward teammates; Antisocial behavior toward opponents."
## [3567] "Subscales: Commitment to university publicness (UniPub); Commitment to performance-based management (PerfCom); Reputation (Reput); Resources."
## [3568] "Scales: Honesty-Humility; Emotionality; Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Openness to Experience."
## [3569] "Factors: Civic skills; Civic duty; Internal political efficacy; Civic behaviors."
## [3570] "Factors: Direct bullying; Indirect bullying; Evaluative bullying."
## [3571] "Subscales: Frequency; Intensity."
## [3572] "Subscales: Self-functioning; Interpersonal functioning."
## [3573] "Subscales: Presence; Awareness of Self and Others; Nonjudgmental Acceptance; Nonreactivity."
## [3574] "Factors: Inappropriate Touch Scale (ITS); Appropriate Touch Scale (ATS)."
## [3575] "Factors: planned pacing behaviors; pacing through flare ups"
## [3576] "Domains: Quality with reference to the individual; Setting and follow up of personal development plans; Staff training; Structure and organization of services; Human resources, equipment, and premises; Community access, and social empowerment."
## [3577] "Subscales: Distress; Avoidance."
## [3578] "Subscales: Rare Symptoms; Symptom Combinations; Extreme Psychopathology; Over-report."
## [3579] "Subscales: Socialized reflexivity; Self-exertion."
## [3580] "Subscales: Approach; Avoidance."
## [3581] "Subscales: Cooperation; Assertion; Responsibility; Empathy; Engagement; Self-control."
## [3582] "Subscales: Rigid Demand (RD); Awfulizing Beliefs (AB); Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT); Global Evaluation (GE); Rational Beliefs (RB)."
## [3583] "Subscales: Social limitations; Problematic/repetitive behaviors."
## [3584] "Subscales: Meaninglessness (ML); Distrust (DT); Moral decline (MD)."
## [3585] "Subscales: Emotional attachment; Fashion leadership; Prestige sensitivity; Social value."
## [3586] "Factors: Self-care; Socially useful activities; Personal and social relationships; Disturbing and aggressive behavior."
## [3587] "Scales: Classroom mastery goal structure; Classroom extrinsic goal structure; Classroom avoidance goal structure; Impulsive decision making; Sensation seeking; Cheating beliefs."
## [3588] "Factors: Well-being and relatedness; Order; Liberality; Vertical self-transcendence; Horizontal self-transcendence; Accomplishment."
## [3589] "Factors: Self-actualization; Vertical self-transcendence; Order; Well-being and relatedness; Horizontal self-transcendence."
## [3590] "Subscales: Presence (MLQ-H-P); Search (MLQ-H-S)."
## [3591] "Factors: Presence of meaning (MLQ-P); Search for meaning (MLQ-S)."
## [3592] "Factors: Goals When Speaking: Not Stuttering; Stuttering Openly. During the Moment of Stuttering: Overt; Covert. During a Moment of Not Stuttering: Overt; Covert; Cognitive-Affective Experiences."
## [3593] "Subscales: Positive affect; Negative affect."
## [3594] "Subscales: Motive; Method; Behavior; Time management; Social influence."
## [3595] "Subscales: Personal Transition; Care Transitions."
## [3596] "Subscales: Socialness; Social Communicative Competence; Imagination; Patterns; Attention Switching."
## [3597] "Subscales: Contentment; Self-respect; Self-control; Anxiety and fear; Insufficiency; Motherhood."
## [3598] "Subscales: Consumption reduction; Environmental concern."
## [3599] "Subscales: Preparedness to Quit Smoking; Work and Time Constraints; Smokers Can or Should Quit on Own; Opinions about Professional Assistance; Mobility Limitations; Insurance Limitations; Misinformation about Professional Assistance."
## [3600] "Subscales: Family identification with the firm (IDENTIF); Orientation toward key non-family stakeholders (ORNOFAMSTA); Economic performance (PERFORM)."
## [3601] "Factors: Strengths; Difficulties; Communication."
## [3602] "Factors: Task Conflict; Social Conflict."
## [3603] "Factors: Interest; Insight."
## [3604] "Subscales: Incidence; Frequency; Difficulty; Challenge."
## [3605] "Factors: Client discovery with support; Client-centered planning and management; Client assessment and training; Integration of diverse groups; Promotion of adaptation between groups; Integration of resources to address the structural constraints; Promotion of social recognition and social justice. Subscales: micro-level competencies; mezzo-level competencies; macro-level competencies."
## [3606] "Subscales: Teasing; Rough-and-tumble play; Encouragement of risk taking; Social daring; Competition; Encouragement of assertiveness; Challenging modeling."
## [3607] "Subscales: Willingness to share (WSI); Privacy concerns (PC); Disease severity (DS); Online information support (OIS); Information sensitivity (IS)."
## [3608] "Factors: Social identification; Homophily; Information bias."
## [3609] "Primary factor: Task, goal, and copresence."
## [3610] "Subscales: Community Activities; Media; Nightlife; Political Activism."
## [3611] "Subscales: Code of Silence: Minor Misconduct; Code of Silence: Serious Misconduct; Effective Parenting: Positive Modeling; Effective Parenting: Corrective Action; Self-Control: Mental Orientation; Self-Control: Impulsivity/Temper; Self-Control: Risk-Seeking; Exposure to Minor Violence; Exposure to Serious Violence; Healthy Family Dynamics; Job Satisfaction; Cynicism: Fatalism of Police Efficacy; Cynicism: Perceptions of Dishonesty in Society; Cynicism: Positive Views of the Police; Cynicism: Political Cynicism."
## [3612] "Factors: Sleep expectations; Worry about insomnia; Perceived consequences of insomnia and medication; Cancer-related concerns."
## [3613] "Factors: Interpersonal functions; Intrapersonal functions. Interpersonal Subscales: Toughness and Autonomy; Interpersonal Influence; Interpersonal Boundaries; Revenge; Peer Bonding. Intrapersonal Subscales: Affect Regulation; Self-Punishment; Anti-Dissociation; Introspective Medium; Replacement of Suffering; Escape Mechanism."
## [3614] "Factors: Perceived gender bias; Perceived quality of academic writing; Perceived readability of writing."
## [3615] "Factors: Zealous Religious Dedication (ZRD); Religious Self-Criticism (RSC)."
## [3616] "Subscales: Support and Protection; Having an Impact; Authenticity; Shared Experience; Initiative from the Other."
## [3617] "Subscales: Technology to bridge online and offline experiences and preferences; Technology to go outside one's identity or offline environment; Technology for social connection."
## [3618] "Subscales: Static Supporting Surface; Dynamic Supporting Surface."
## [3619] "Subscales: Cyberbullying; Cybervictimization; Cyber-defending; Cyber-passive bystanding."
## [3620] "Subscales: Social Support; Community Drivenness; Community Identification; Community Trust; Customer Engagement (Vigor; Dedication; Absorption); Willingness to Co-create; Stickiness Intention; Repurchase Intention; Positive electronic word of mouth (eWOM) intention."
## [3621] "Factors: Thwarted belongingness; Perceived burdensomeness."
## [3622] "Factors: Activities (ACT); Information (INF); Relationships (REL); Caring (CAR)"
## [3623] "Subscales: General cognitive difficulties; Fatigue; Prospective memory difficulties; Low self-esteem; Interpersonal difficulties; Non-supportive workplace; Movement/mobility difficulties; Workplace inaccessibility; Pain/temperature difficulties; Bladder/bowel difficulties; Work/home balance difficulties; Financial security concerns."
## [3624] "Factors: Competence and attachment anxieties; Safety and welfare anxieties; Practical baby care anxieties; Psychosocial adjustment to motherhood."
## [3625] "Factors: Psychological/Cognitive Barriers; Physical Barriers; External Barriers."
## [3626] "Factors: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Negative emotionality; Open-mindedness."
## [3627] "Factors: Structure; Challenge; Support."
## [3628] "Factors: Attitude; Subjective norm (SN); Perceived behavioural control (PBC); Intentions; Behavioural beliefs; Normative beliefs; Control beliefs."
## [3629] "Subscales: Identity-Based Growth; Identity Cohesion."
## [3630] "Factors: Psychosis; Mood; Euphoria."
## [3631] "Factors: Anxiety and depression risk; Substance misuse risk; Interpersonal risk; Chronic risk; Risk due to life events."
## [3632] "Factors: Interpersonal resilience; Cognitive resilience."
## [3633] "Factors: Trigger Stimulus; Consequence."
## [3634] "Factors: Thoughts; Feelings"
## [3635] "Factors: Affirmation; Concrete Aid; Affect."
## [3636] "Factors: Encourage/Monitor scale; Protect scale."
## [3637] "Factors: Confidence in newborn care; Postpartum nursing care; Provision of choice; Physical environment; Respect for privacy; Labor/delivery nursing care."
## [3638] "Factors: Humiliation; Physical adverse effects; Interpersonal separation; Negative environmental influences; Fear."
## [3639] "Domains: Memory; Orientation; Judgment; Community affairs; Home hobbies; Personal care; Personality & Behavioral problem; Language."
## [3640] "Factors: Sport commitment; Social constraints; Sport enjoyment; Involvement Alternatives."
## [3641] "Subscales: Enthusiastic commitment; Constrained commitment; Sport enjoyment; Valuable opportunities; Other priorities; Personal investments-loss; Personal investments-quantity; Social constraints; Social support-emotional; Social support-informational; Desire to excel—Mastery; Desire to excel—Social."
## [3642] "Subscales: Sense of Incompetence and Helplessness; Distress and Entrapment."
## [3643] "Scales: Normalization process scale (total score); Coherence (CO); Cognitive participation (CP); Collective action (CA); Reflexive monitoring (RM)."
## [3644] "Subscales: Quality of care; Women's attributes; Stress experienced."
## [3645] "Subscales: Holistic view; Self-acceptance; Self-understanding."
## [3646] "Factors: Commitment regulation in ICT based vocabulary learning; Metacognitive regulation in ICT based vocabulary learning; Affective regulation in ICT based vocabulary learning; Social regulation in ICT based vocabulary learning; Resource regulation in ICT based vocabulary learning."
## [3647] "Domains: Life applications; Self in Group; Agency."
## [3648] "Subscales: Self-awareness; Cognitive empathy; Social skills; Emotional reactivity."
## [3649] "Subscales: Self-monitoring and insight; Constructive attitudes and approaches; Skill and technique acquisition; Emotional distress; Feeling understood and supported by health care providers; Social support for health; Using technology to process health information; Understanding of health concepts and language; Ability to actively engage with digital services; Feel safe and in control; Motivated to engage with digital services; Access to digital services that work; Digital services that suit individual needs."
## [3650] "Factors: Social skills; Cognitive empathy; Emotional reactivity."
## [3651] "Factors: Cognitive empathy; Emotional empathy; Social skills."
## [3652] "Factors: Gross motor performance; Static position and fine motor performance."
## [3653] "Subscales: Cognitive Function; Executive Function."
## [3654] "Factors: Identifying with my state; Solidarity and social justice; Trust in National institutions; Trust in public justice. Subscales: Confidence in Prime Minister and the government; Patriotism; Society's coping with crisis."
## [3655] "Factors: Social wellbeing (SWB); Academic wellbeing (AWB); Emotional wellbeing (EWB)."
## [3656] "Subscales: Adult Affect (AA); Adult Behavior (AB); Adult Cognition (AC); Child Affect (CA); Child Behavior (CB); Child Cognition (CC)."
## [3657] "Factors: Classical; Modern."
## [3658] "Domains: Physical traits; Behavioral features."
## [3659] "Domains: Physical characteristics; Behavioral features."
## [3660] "Subscales: Training; Knowledge; Awareness"
## [3661] "Subscales: Coping; Intoxication enhancement; Energy enhancement; Conformity; Social."
## [3662] "Factors: Cognitive Challenge (COG); Performative Challenge (PERF); Emotional Challenge (EMO); Decision-Making Challenge (DM)."
## [3663] "Factors: Willingness scale (WS); Avoidance scale (AS); Psychological flexibility (PF)."
## [3664] "Factors: Food as control; Weight as barrier to living; Weight-stigma."
## [3665] "Factors: Conversational Effectiveness; Successful Communicative Supports."
## [3666] "Factors: Clarification of Value and Commitment (CVC); Continuation of Avoidance (CA)"
## [3667] "Factors: Unworkable action; Mindful acceptance."
## [3668] "Subscales: Fan-to-fan relationship; Team-to-fan relationship; Fan co-creation."
## [3669] "Subscales: Child Resistance to Eating; Positive Mealtime Environment; Parent Aversion to Mealtime."
## [3670] "Subscales: Discomfort; Knowledge of capacity and rights; Interaction; Sensitivity or tenderness; Knowledge of causes."
## [3671] "Subscales: Drama and Excitement; Intentions to Follow Cricket; Nostalgic Association; Patriotism; Social Influence; Interest in the Star Players."
## [3672] "Subscales: Pressures to perform; Perceptions of workload; Academic Self-Perception; Time restraints."
## [3673] "Subscales: Coping; Control; Consequences."
## [3674] "Subscales: Diagnosticity; Stability."
## [3675] "Subscales: Food; Imagination; Nature."
## [3676] "Subscales: Effectiveness/Productivity; Organizational Trust; Work-Related Flexibility; Work-Life Interference."
## [3677] "Subscales: Attitudes towards online health information; Comfort with sharing health experiences online; Usefulness of sharing health experiences online; Motivation and confidence to act; Information and presentation; Identification. Factors: Motivation and confidence to act; Information and presentation; Identification."
## [3678] "Subscales: Resistance to Framing (RF); Recognizing Social Norms (RSN); Under/Overconfidence (UOC); Applying Decision Rules (ADR); Consistency in Risk Perception (CRP); Resistance to Sunk Costs (RtSC)."
## [3679] "Subscales: Social intelligence; Love; Kindness; Fairness; Teamwork; Perspective; Leadership; Bravery; Love of learning; Curiosity; Appreciation of beauty; Creativity; Prudence; Self-regulation; Forgiveness; Open-mindedness; Modesty; Persistence; Zest; Gratitude; Spirituality; Hope; Humor; Authenticity. Factors: Interpersonal strengths; Intellectual strengths; Temperance strengths; Transcendence strengths."
## [3680] "Subscales: Withdrawal ruptures; Confrontation ruptures; Resolution strategies."
## [3681] "Factors: Psychological openness (PO); Help-seeking propensity (HP); Indifference to stigma (IS)."
## [3682] "Factors: Interpretation; Experience"
## [3683] "Factors: Optimism; Innovativeness; Insecurity; Discomfort; Perceived ease of use (PEOU); Perceived usefulness (PU); Intention to use"
## [3684] "Factors: Non-Electrical; Electrical; Natural. Coding categories (Open-ended item): Power; Electrical; Electronic; Mechanical; Human-Made; Solves-a-problem."
## [3685] "Factors: Noticing; Not-Distracting; Not-Worrying; Attention Regulation; Emotional Awareness; Self-Regulation; Body Listening; Trusting."
## [3686] "Factors: Time barrier; Tiredness barrier."
## [3687] "Factors: Thinking skills; Multiple perspectives; Prior knowledge; Self-regulation; Collaboration"
## [3688] "Subscales: Teacher Interactions; Peer Interactions; Task Orientation; Conflict Interactions."
## [3689] "Factors: Religious Leader Support (RLS); Allah Support (AS); Religious Participant Support (RPS)."
## [3690] "Scales: Employee resources investments; Organizational resource investments. Subscales: Care; Services; Information; Status; Monetary investments."
## [3691] "Factors: Frequency; Quality; Elaboration."
## [3692] "Factors: Identification with Self-Image; Identification with Ideal Outcome; Identification with Comfort Zone Feelings; Identification with Striving Ideals; Identification with The Material Self."
## [3693] "Factors: Social discrimination and selectivity; Physical and verbal closeness; Friendliness level."
## [3694] "Subscales: Rich and varied lessons; Increased support; Learning gains; Confusion."
## [3695] "Subscales: Chaos; Structure; Autonomy support; Warmth; Rejection; Coercion"
## [3696] "Subscales: Personal Relevance; Student Cohesiveness; Teacher Support; Investigation/Involvement; Task Orientation; Enjoyment of Science."
## [3697] "Subscales: Warmth; Rejection; Structure; Chaos; Autonomy support; Coercion."
## [3698] "Dimensions: (1) spirituality focused on understanding God vs. understanding the Self; and (2) the psychological closeness of the Self and the Divine."
## [3699] "Subscales: Brand equity; Repurchase intention; Distributive justice; Interactional justice; Stability of attribution."
## [3700] "Subscales: Sexism and Racism Awareness; Communitarian Values; Multicultural Ideology; Inequality Consciousness."
## [3701] "Factors: Goals and Data; Facilitator Effectiveness; Interpersonal Perception."
## [3702] "Factors: Instills confidence through caring; Supportive learning climate; Control vs flexibility; Respectful sharing."
## [3703] "Subscales: Helpless/Hopeless (HH); Anxious Preoccupation (AP); Fighting Spirit(FS); Fatalism (FA); Cognitive Avoidance (CA)."
## [3704] "Subscales: Depression (DS); Somatic (SS)"
## [3705] "Subscales: Termination practices theorized as applicable to older adults with PD; Protective termination practices theorized as more applicable to older adults"
## [3706] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitude; Practice."
## [3707] "Factors: Sense of responsibility; Vocational identification; Agreeableness; Cooperation capacity; Carefulness."
## [3708] "Domains: Physical sensations or physical reactions in response to thoughts or emotions; Spontaneous vivid imagery in response to specific thoughts or situations; Spontaneous influence on behavior by the imagination or nonconscious thought content; Spontaneous superimposing of a sense of meaning on neutral or ambiguous external stimuli; Spontaneous emotional responses to imagery; Spontaneous useful memory modulation; Effortless completion of complex familiar tasks with little or no conscious attention or volition; Narrowed awareness of, or dissociation from, the here-and-now in response to compelling thoughts or imagery; Personally valuable knowledge or ideas emerging spontaneously in consciousness."
## [3709] "Factors: Control; Help; Automaton; Magical; Collaboration; Interest; Memory; Marginal."
## [3710] "Factors: Fear; Memory; Help; Control; Collaboration; Interest; Magic; Marginal."
## [3711] "Factors: Environment; Care; Communication and respect; Autonomy; Activities; Transition (leaving)."
## [3712] "Factors: Happiness; Anxiety; Anger; Dejection."
## [3713] "Subscales: Coherence (CO); Cognitive participation (CP); Collective action (CA); Reflexive monitoring (RM)."
## [3714] "Subscales: Self-devaluation; Social withdrawal; Public stigma; Family stigma."
## [3715] "Factors: Innovation Capability, Financial Resources; R & D Human Capital; Innovation Leadership; Collaborative Culture; Government Support."
## [3716] "Subscales: Harmony; Objectives; Structure; Future; Personal control."
## [3717] "Subscales: Structure; Harmonious goals; Future; Control"
## [3718] "Factors: Structure; Harmony; Goals; Future; Control."
## [3719] "Subscales: Consumer knowledge; Consumer awareness & involvement; Credibility of environmental quality; Consumer trust; Design & visibility; Persuasiveness; Information clarity; Private benefit."
## [3720] "Factors: Aggression (Outward Expression of Hostility); Hostility (Hostile Thoughts and Feelings). Subscales: Assaultiveness (Aggression); Indirect Hostility (Aggression); Verbal Hostility (Aggression); Negativism (Aggression; specific to girls); Irritability (Hostility); Resentment (Hostility); Suspicion (Hostility)."
## [3721] "Factors: Impulsivity; Callous-Unemotional (CU); Narcissism."
## [3722] "Subscales: Depression; Anxiety; Outwardly directed irritability; Inwardly directed irritability."
## [3723] "Scales: Parent-rated irritability; Child/Self-rated irritability."
## [3724] "Subscales: Attachment behavior; Exploratory behavior; Socioemotional behavior."
## [3725] "Factors: Animal rights; Anthropocentric; Animal protection; Lay utilitarian."
## [3726] "Factors: Realistic threat; Symbolic threat"
## [3727] "Factors: Self-care; Dangerousness; Police behavior."
## [3728] "Subscales: Suppression; Adjusting; Accepting."
## [3729] "Factors: Social media; Customer relationship; Purchasing behavior."
## [3730] "Subscales: Sexual/relational motives; Goal attainment/insecurity motives."
## [3731] "Subscales: Incompetence; Undesirability; Abandon/Rejection; Powerless/Helpless; Difference."
## [3732] "Factors: Undesirability/rejection; Incompetence; Self-depreciation; Difference/loneliness; Helpless."
## [3733] "Factors: Buying intention (BI); Functional utility (FU); Symbolic utility (SU); Attitude towards the Organisation (AtO); Concern (CONCERN); Perceived knowledge (PK)."
## [3734] "Subscales: Gender discrimination (GD); Sexual violence (SV)."
## [3735] "Subscales: Understanding; Action planning; Hope; Reassurance."
## [3736] "Subscales: External similarity; Internal similarity; Parasocial interaction; Trust toward members; Trust toward social commerce platform; Social shopping intention; Social sharing intention."
## [3737] "Subscales: Academic engagement; Interpersonal skills; Study skills."
## [3738] "Factors: Desire for partner; Sex with partner; Sex with other persons; Desire for other persons; Autoerotic activities."
## [3739] "Factors: God Helped (GH); Family History of Religiousness (FHR); Lifetime Religious Social Support (LRSS); Cost of Religiousness (CR)."
## [3740] "Subscales: Stress Reduction; Pleasure; Physical Desirability; Experience Seeking; Resources; Reproduction; Social Status; Revenge; Practical; Love & Commitment; Expression; Self-Esteem Boost; Duty/Pressure; Mate Guarding."
## [3741] "Subscales: Environment enhancement; Social competition; Attention seeking; Mood modification; Self-confidence; Subjective conformity."
## [3742] "Scales: Phonological Component; Orthographic Component; Morphological Component."
## [3743] "Subscales: Gender bashing (GB); Transphobia/genderism (TG)."
## [3744] "Subscales: General beliefs; Adaptation of instruction to fit the learning characteristics of students with learning disabilities; Adaptation of instruction to teach middle school mathematics topics effectively to students with learning disabilities."
## [3745] "Factors: Routine; Automaticity."
## [3746] "Factors: Ability-enhancing HR practices (Extensive training; Rigorous staffing); Motivation-enhancing HR practices (Performance-based appraisal and compensation; Employee relations); Opportunity-enhancing HR practices (Self-managed teams; Flexible work arrangements; Empowerment)."
## [3747] "Factors: Overevaluation of striving; Concern over mistakes; Clinical perfectionism (general factor)."
## [3748] "Subscales: PA: Assured–Dominant; BC: Competitive–Mistrusting; DE: Cold–Hostile; FG: Detached–Inhibited; HI: Unassuming–Submissive; JK: Deferent−Trusting; LM: Warm−Friendly; NO: Sociable−Exhibitionistic."
## [3749] "Factors: Math test and evaluation anxiety; Negative affect in relation to Math in general; Worry."
## [3750] "Subscales: Irrationality; Rationality."
## [3751] "Subscales: Direct and Indirect Care; Emotional Support; Evocations; Physical Play and Openness to the World; Discipline."
## [3752] "Factors: Emotional support; Opening to the world; Basic care; Physical play; Evocations; Discipline."
## [3753] "Subscales: System support; Belief; Conceptual knowledge; Practical knowledge; Resource; Time; System barrier."
## [3754] "Subscales: Intrinsic Motivation (9 items); Extrinsic Motivation (10 items)."
## [3755] "Scales: German; Mathematics."
## [3756] "Factors: Apathy; Emotional. Domains: Social withdrawal; Diminished emotional range: Avolition; Anhedonia; Alogia."
## [3757] "Factors: Diminished emotional range; Avolition; Alogia; Social withdrawal; Anhedonia."
## [3758] "Subscales: Limiting Affection Conflict (LAC); Explaining the importance of the bond conflict (EBC)."
## [3759] "Factors: Respecting older adult in nursing care; Age discrimination and negative views towards older adults; Attention to older adult and their basic caring needs."
## [3760] "Subscales: Clinical; Empowerment; Vitality."
## [3761] "Subscales: Territoriality; Knowledge hiding; Task performance; Interpersonal deviance; Organizational deviance."
## [3762] "Subscales: Open-Minded Input-Driven Learning; Individualized Scaffolding; Growth Mindset; Forgiving Environment; Serious Commitment to Learning; Learning Multiple Skills Simultaneously."
## [3763] "Subscales: Reality testing ability; Judgment; Thinking processes; Creativity; Sense of reality; Object relations; Regulation and control of emotions, Impulses and instincts; Functioning of the defense; Autonomic functions; Stimulus threshold; Ability to synthesize; Predominance/success."
## [3764] "Subscales: Functionally motivated consumer innovativeness; Hedonically motivated consumer innovativeness; Cognitively motivated consumer innovativeness; Socially motivated consumer innovativeness; Attitude; Desire; Behavioral intentions."
## [3765] "Factors: Reducing intake of specific food item; Reducing intake of nutritious food; Reducing overall amount of food intake."
## [3766] "Subscales: Somatic symptoms; Anxiety and insomnia; Social dysfunction; Severe depression."
## [3767] "Factors: Traditional virtues (Virt); Relational values (Rela); Choice norms (Chnm)."
## [3768] "Subscales: Green compensation management (GCM); Green health and safety (GHS); Green job design (GJD); Green labor relations (GLR); Green performance management (GPM); Green recruitment and selection (GRS); Green training and development (GTD)."
## [3769] "Factors: Ambiguous loss of homeland (ALH); Satisfaction with the country of origin (SCO); Satisfaction with the United States (SUS). Subscales: Ambiguous loss of homeland (ALH); Relative satisfaction (RS)."
## [3770] "Subscales: Observation; Targeted cueing; Instruction."
## [3771] "Subscales: Explanation provision; Seeking athlete involvement."
## [3772] "Factors: Amotivation; External; Introjected; Identified; Intrinsic."
## [3773] "Subscales: Hotel Image (HI); Service Quality (SQ); Perceived Value (PV); Tourist/Customer Satisfaction; Hotel Reputation (HR); Customer Commitment (CC); Customer Loyalty (CL)."
## [3774] "Indices: W; D. Domains: Absolutism; Relativism; Post-relativism."
## [3775] "Subscales: Importance; Likelihood."
## [3776] "Subscales: Political skill; Work role performance; Perceived organizational support; Intention to leave. Factors: Networking ability; Apparent sincerity; Social astuteness; Interpersonal influence; Individual task proficiency; Individual task adaptivity; Individual task proactivity."
## [3777] "Factors: Contractual governance; Relational governance; Absorptive capacity; Software-as-a-Service adaptation actions; Software-As-A-Service Operational Benefits; Software-as-a-Service innovation benefits; Firm performance."
## [3778] "Subscales: Self Injurious Behavior (SIB); Aggressive–Destructive behavior; Stereotyped behaviors."
## [3779] "Factors: Cognitive Restructuring; Relaxation."
## [3780] "Factors: Performing online social behavior; Receiving online social behavior."
## [3781] "Factors: Pilgrim experiential risk; Pilgrim experiential desire; Pilgrim experiential motivation; Pilgrim experiential satisfaction; Pilgrim experiential trust; Celebrity attachment; Pilgrim experiential supportive intentions."
## [3782] "Scales: Subjective Well-Being Scale for Chinese Citizens; Satisfaction with Life Scale; General Well-Being Scale; Well-Being Index Scale; Global Happiness Scale; Scale of Happiness of the Memorial University of Newfounland; Affect Balance Scale. Dimensions: Experience of Health; Experience of Satisfaction; Experience of Development; Life Satisfaction; Health Concerns; Energy; Satisfaction and Interest in Life; A Melancholy or Cheerful State of Mind; Control of Emotions and Behavior; Relaxation and Tension (Anxiety); General Well-Being Index; Measuring happiness at a global level; Positive Affect; Negative Affect; General Positive Experience; General Negative Experience."
## [3783] "Subscales: Dominance; Prestige; Leadership."
## [3784] "Factors: Internal barriers; External barriers."
## [3785] "Factors: Psychoticism (P); Extraversion (E); Neuroticism (N); Lie (L)."
## [3786] "Factors: Psychoticism (P); Extraversion (E); Neuroticism (N); Lie (L)."
## [3787] "Subscales: Competence; Autonomy; Relatedness."
## [3788] "Factors: Positive attitude scale (PAS); Negative attitude scale (NAS)."
## [3789] "Subscales: Values; Acceptance; Mindfulness."
## [3790] "Subscales: Control; Concerns; Material; Happiness."
## [3791] "Subscales: Mental and physical wellbeing; Injury pain and illness; Physical activity facilitators."
## [3792] "Subscales: Spatial Presence; Active Social Presence; Passive Social Presence; Social Presence – Actor Within Medium; Engagement; Social Richness; Social Realism; Perceptual Realism."
## [3793] "Factors: Moral processing; Self‐awareness; Relational transparency."
## [3794] "Factors: Control During Movement; Fine Motor/Handwriting; Gross Motor/Planning; General Coordination."
## [3795] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation and integrative regulation (enjoyment and bonding); Identified regulation (maternal self-perception); Introjected regulation (significant others' pressure); External regulation (instrumental needs); External regulation (baby's health)."
## [3796] "Subscales: Bonding; Enjoyment and maternal self-perception; Social approval; Social pressure; Instrumental needs."
## [3797] "Subscales: Visual; Auditory; Gustatory; Olfactory; Tactile; Vestibular; Proprioception; Hypo-responsiveness; Hyper-responsiveness."
## [3798] "Factors: Autonomy; Competence; Relatedness; Beneficence"
## [3799] "Subscales: Theft and burglary; Motor vehicle offenses; Drug-related offenses; Assault; Vandalism; School-related offenses; Public disorder."
## [3800] "Subscales: Theft and burglary; Motor vehicle offenses; Drug-related offenses; Assault; Vandalism; School-related offenses; Public disorder."
## [3801] "Subscales: Loss of purpose; Inability to cope with the illness."
## [3802] "Subscales: Other-awareness; Self-awareness; Courage; Responsiveness."
## [3803] "Factors: Gendered emotion expression; Gender-neutral emotion expression; Gendered emotion socialization."
## [3804] "Factors: Pre-contemplation; Contemplation; Preparation; Action/Maintenance."
## [3805] "Subscales: Stereotypical assault; Acquaintance assault; Assault resistance; Date/Friend assault."
## [3806] "Factors: Public Support for Gender Equality (SGEMS‐Public): Domestic Support for Gender Equality (SGEMS‐Domestic)"
## [3807] "Factors: Subjective well-being life satisfaction affect; Expectation; Serendipity; Travel satisfaction."
## [3808] "Subscales: Activities; Relationships; Living conditions; Negative emotions; Control; Sleep; Self-esteem."
## [3809] "Factors: To be included; To trust professionals; To take control; To understand information."
## [3810] "Subscales: Physically experienced demands; Environmentally experienced demands; Psychosocially experienced demands."
## [3811] "Subscales: Negation emotion; Interaction with people and the environment; Intimacy; Religiosity; Physical symptoms: Bulbar function."
## [3812] "Factors: Internal Anger; External Anger; Anger Control; Anger Expression."
## [3813] "Subscales: Anger because of obstructions or slowdowns caused by other pedestrians; Anger because of hostility from other drivers; Anger because of bad conditions of the infrastructure; Anger because of dangerous situations caused by vehicles."
## [3814] "Subscales: Market dynamism; Closed ties (Social interaction; Network density); Diverse ties; Pioneering orientation; Imitation."
## [3815] "Factors: Importance attached to non-participant sharing (INPS); Importance attached to participant sharing (IPS)"
## [3816] "Factors: Attitude towards rule violation and speeding (ARS); Attitude towards the careless driving of others (ACD); Attitude towards drinking and driving (ADD)."
## [3817] "Subscales: Incentives to employment; Barriers to employment"
## [3818] "Subscales: Virtue ethics; Deontology; Consequentialism."
## [3819] "Factors: Feeling isolated; Available social connections."
## [3820] "Factors: Positive reinforcement; Escape."
## [3821] "Subscales: Downward Classism; Upward Classism"
## [3822] "Subscales: Downward Classism; Upward Classism; Lateral Classism."
## [3823] "Subscales: Type of Media; Amount; Method of Consumption; Importance."
## [3824] "Subscales: Knowledge and skills related to medication error reporting; Feedback and support related to medication error reporting; Action and impact following medication error reporting; Motivation related to medication error reporting; Effort related to medication error reporting; Emotions related to medication error reporting."
## [3825] "Subscales: Relationship with others; Personal Growth; Change of lifestyle; Pressure from others."
## [3826] "Factors: Respecting and caring for dying patients and families; Avoiding care of the dying; Involving patients and families in end-of-life care."
## [3827] "Subscales: Supporting the Dying Patients and Families; Helping Families Cope With Grief."
## [3828] "Subscales: Community service; Social networking; Career advancement; Well-being; Generativity."
## [3829] "Domains: Film-Formulated Nostalgia (Memory of envying advanced society; Reminiscence of mimicking and desire to buy brand products; Memory of film backdrops and contents; Memory of Hong Kong history and culture); Psychological involvement; Behavioral involvement; Familiarity; Behavioral intention."
## [3830] "Factors: Anxiety; Depression."
## [3831] "Constructs (Factors): Social commerce constructs (Forums and communities; Ratings and reviews; Recommendation and referrals); Relationship quality (Commitment; Satisfaction; Trust); Social support (Informational support; Emotional support); Social commerce intentions; Use behavior."
## [3832] "Factors: Cloud computing assimilation (CCA/ASS); Top management support (TMS); Government regulation (GR); Government support (GS)."
## [3833] "Factors: Technology competence; Top management support; Coercive pressures; Normative pressures; Mimetic pressures; Software as a service use; Perceived opportunities; Perceived risks; Cost saving; Security concerns; Software as a service use continuance intention."
## [3834] "Factors: Intrusive Rumination; Deliberate Rumination."
## [3835] "Factors: Effort cost; LoVA cost; Emotional cost."
## [3836] "Scales: Task conflict; Relational behavior; Relationship quality. Subfactors: Flexibility; Information exchange; Solidarity; Satisfaction; Trust; Commitment."
## [3837] "Factors: Pedagogical; Classroom environment; Student connection; Student motivation."
## [3838] "Subscales: Perceived insufficient services and limited products; Lack of facilities and attractions; Personal language and transportation barriers; Time and information constraints."
## [3839] "Subscales: High Scores (HS); Relationship Growth (RG); Personal Growth (PG); Assured Success (AS)."
## [3840] "Factors: Machiavellianism; Narcissism; Psychopathy."
## [3841] "Subscales: Other-Directed; Lighthearted; Intellectual; Whimsical."
## [3842] "Subscales: Teacher Knowledge about Tier 1 Implementation; Teacher Knowledge about Leadership and School Systems; Teacher Knowledge about Data-Based Decision Making."
## [3843] "Subscales: Fear of Property Crime; Fear of Violent Crime."
## [3844] "Subscales: Protection; Punishment."
## [3845] "Subscales: Adherence; Quality."
## [3846] "Factors: Believes an Active Role is Important; Confidence and Knowledge to Take Action; Taking Action"
## [3847] "Factors: Self-Efficacy/Control; Supportive University Environment; Financial Confidence; Student Racial/Ethnic Identity."
## [3848] "Subscales: Comprehensiveness; Family-centeredness and community orientation; Coordination; Service and communication; First contact (access); Ongoing care; Outreach; First contact utilization; Stableness of primary care provider (PCP)."
## [3849] "Factors: Suffering; Self-Sacrifice; Claims of Strength"
## [3850] "Factors: Well-Being; Symptoms; Life Functioning; Global Mental Health."
## [3851] "Subscales: Frequency of communication; Satisfaction with communication; Barriers to communication."
## [3852] "Subscales: Arguments; Psychological/verbal aggression; Slight physical aggression; Severe physical aggression."
## [3853] "Factors: Hostility/Rejection; Parenting/Attachment; Helplessness/Anxiety."
## [3854] "Factors: Professional and organization satisfaction; Support and flexibility; Professional role; Physical environment; Clinical supervision; External personal support."
## [3855] "Factors: Personal stigma; Perceived stigma (Stigma scale); Social distance."
## [3856] "Factors: Outcome empowerment; Verbal empowerment; Behavioral empowerment."
## [3857] "Subscales: Passionate-Romantic; Open-Direct; Embarrassed-Conservative."
## [3858] "Subscales: Authoritative parenting; Educational integration; Empathy and perspective-taking; Integration into peer groups; Optimism; Parental social and emotional support; Self-control; Self-efficacy; Self-esteem; Sense of coherence."
## [3859] "Factors: Developing and administering language assessments; Assessment in language pedagogy; Assessment policy and local practices; Personal beliefs and attitudes; Statistical and research methods; Assessment principles and interpretation; Language structure, use and development; Washback and preparation; Scoring and rating."
## [3860] "Scales: Self-report; Observer. Factors: Mental ability; Conscientiousness; Self-efficacy; Coping. Sub-factors: Planning & organization; Learning & memory; Adaptability; Concentration; Problem-solving (Mental ability); Persistency; Self-confidence (Self-efficacy); Task-oriented coping; Emotion-oriented coping; Avoidance coping (Coping)."
## [3861] "Factors: Narrative processing; Affect; Brand attitude; Purchase intention."
## [3862] "Scales: Before Ultrasound; After Ultrasound. Factors: Anxiety about the baby’s health; Expectation about interaction with staff; Attachment; Verification; Reservation; Deciding (Before Ultrasound Scale); Information during examination; Attachment; Family affinity; Anxiety about the results; Sense of security (After Ultrasound Scale)."
## [3863] "Factors: Emotional reaction to pain; Limitations to daily life caused by pain; Interference caused by pain in personal and social functioning."
## [3864] "Subscales: Physical Environment; Learning Materials; Modeling & Encouraging Maturity; Family Routines & Regulatory Activities; Family Companionship & Investment; Warmth, Acceptance, & Responsiveness."
## [3865] "Subscales: Stress/conflict avoidance; Homemade food; Shared family food; Family involvement in mealtimes; Price; Occasional treats; High/low fat regulation."
## [3866] "Subscales: Mastery; Creative Self-Efficacy."
## [3867] "Factors: Perception of illness; Etiology; Sexual behavior; General perception; General view"
## [3868] "Subscales: Speaking in public/talking with people in authority; Interactions with the opposite sex; Assertive expression of annoyance, disgust or displeasure; Criticism and embarrassment; Interactions with strangers."
## [3869] "Subscales: Object control (OC); Locomotor (LOC)."
## [3870] "Subscales: Behavioural activation (BA); Social motivation (SM); Emotional sensitivity (ES)."
## [3871] "Subscales: Worries; Tension; Joy; Demands."
## [3872] "Subscales: Negative Affect and Resentment; Concern for Group Integrity; In-Group Identification; Perception of Discrimination."
## [3873] "Subscales: Physical abuse (PA); Emotional abuse (EA); Harassment (HA); Severe combined abuse (SCA)."
## [3874] "Factors: Free, Unstructured Play; Structured Play."
## [3875] "Factors: Identity; Impulsivity."
## [3876] "Subscales: Self-recognition; Willingness to seek help; Fear and stigma; Family/partner support; Logistics of getting an appointment; GP reaction; Logistics of attending appointment; Barriers to therapy."
## [3877] "Subscales: Work Engagement (WE); Workaholism (WH)."
## [3878] "Domains: Motor skills; Cognitive skills; Language skills; Social–emotional skills; Mental health skills."
## [3879] "Factors: Fundamental motor skills (FMS [Locomotion skills; Object control skills]); Active play (AP)."
## [3880] "Factors: Psychosomatic symptoms; Mental symptoms; Interpersonal problems."
## [3881] "Subscales: Non-violent; Violent."
## [3882] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitude; Behavior."
## [3883] "Factors: Trust in daughter; Internalization of sociocultural pressure; Mother-daughter shopping; Clothing conformity; Mother-daughter solidarity; Psychological well-being."
## [3884] "Subscales: Emotional Support Skills; Session Management Skills; Helping Skills/Insight; Helping Skills/Exploration; Helping Skills/Action."
## [3885] "Subscales: Message frequency; Challenge appraisal; Threat appraisal."
## [3886] "Factors: Before Ultrasound (Anxiety about baby's health; Expectation about interaction with staff; Attachment; Verification; Reservation; Deciding; Interpretation); After Ultrasound (Information during examination; Attachment; Family affinity; Anxiety about the results: Sense of security)."
## [3887] "Subscales: Bullying; Victimization."
## [3888] "Subscales: Resource Readiness; Cultural Readiness; Strategy Readiness; Technology Readiness; Innovation Valance; Cognitive Readiness; Partnership Readiness."
## [3889] "Subscales: Cooking Skills; Cooking Knowledge; Nutrition Knowledge; Food Systems Knowledge; Self-Efficacy Regarding Eating."
## [3890] "Factors: Psychosocial and emotional; Fertility; Sexual function; Obesity and menstrual disorder; Hirsutism; Coping."
## [3891] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitude; Practice."
## [3892] "Subscales: Lay theories about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate ability (CA); Internal attribution; Company evaluation; Prosocial behavior."
## [3893] "Subscales: Rehearsal; Impact."
## [3894] "Subscales: Interactions with facility administration and staff; Mediums used for interaction; Communication and providing care; In person visitation."
## [3895] "Subscales: Maladaptive reactions to shame (MRS); Guilt/self-blame (GSB)."
## [3896] "Factors: Reflective Learning with ICT (RL); Authentic Learning with ICT (AUL); Collaborative Learning with ICT (COL); Active Constructive Learning with ICT (ACTL); Beliefs of New Culture of Learning (BNCL); Design Disposition (DD); Design Thinking Efficacy (DT); Teachers as designer (TAD)"
## [3897] "Subscales: Managing the sessions; Administrative duties; Designing the treatment."
## [3898] "Subscales: Individuals' behavioral negotiation; Cognitive negotiation; Group members' behavioral negotiation."
## [3899] "Subscales: Physical abuse (PA); Emotional abuse (EA); Harassment (HA); Severe combined abuse (SCA)."
## [3900] "Factors: Behavior-Effort/attention; Behavior-Boredom/distraction; Emotional-Social; Emotional-Learning; Cognitive-Strategies; Cognitive-Autoregulation."
## [3901] "Subscales: Demographics and Use of the Internet; Knowledge About Cybercivility; Experience With and Perceptions of Cyberincivility; Perceived Benefits of Including Cybercivility in IPE and Preferred Formats."
## [3902] "Factors: Individual behaviors in online environments; Online class attendance attitudes; Email manner on online environments; Online assignment ethics."
## [3903] "Factors: Medical Locus of Control; Treatment-Specific Efficacy; Perception of Support; Expectations of Allied Health."
## [3904] "Subscales: Amotivation; External regulation; Introjected regulation; Identified regulation; Intrinsic regulation."
## [3905] "Factors: First Contact-Accessibility; First Contact-Utilization; Ongoing Care; Coordination of Service; Comprehensiveness-Services Available; Comprehensiveness-Services Received; Community Orientation longitudinality interpersonal relationships, comprehensiveness services available, comprehensiveness services received, coordination, and community orientation"
## [3906] "Subscales: Distraction, Rumination, Reappraisal, Suppression, Engagement, Arousal Control."
## [3907] "Subscales: Distraction; Rumination; Reappraisal; Suppression; Engagement; Relaxation."
## [3908] "Factors: General social curiosity (SCS-G); Covert social curiosity (SCS-C)."
## [3909] "Factors: Nonreligiousness (NR); Nonspirituality (NS)."
## [3910] "Factors: Youth (Cooking skills by yourself; Cooking skills with help; Physical activity; Openness to new foods; Culinary self-efficacy; Eating together); Adults (Cooking together; Eating together; Physical activity)."
## [3911] "Factors: Taking safety measures; Eating a healthy diet; Coping with uncertainty; Seeking help from professionals."
## [3912] "Dimensions: Physical well-being; Psychological well-being; Moods and emotions; Self-perception; Autonomy; Parent relations and home life; Financial resources; Peers and social support; School environment; Social acceptance."
## [3913] "Factors: Self-blame; Acceptance; Rumination; Positive refocusing; Refocus on planning; Positive reappraisal; Putting into perspective; Catastrophizing; Other-blame."
## [3914] "Domains: Attention/Orientation; Memory; Fluency; Language; Visuospatial functions."
## [3915] "Factors: General anxiety; Social anxiety; Separation anxiety; Specific fears."
## [3916] "Factors: Empathy; Sacred connection; Distress; Space and Time."
## [3917] "Factors: Professional performance; Awareness and contribution in self-care; Recognition of physical needs; Human resources; Pain and fear; Interdisciplinary collaboration; Overall care outcomes."
## [3918] "Factors: Nützlichkeit (Usefulness); Pädagogisches Interesse (Pedagogical interest); Fähigkeitsüberzeugung (Ability conviction); Soziale Einflüsse (Social influences); Geringe Schwierigkeit des Lehramtsstudiums (Low difficulty in teaching); Fachliches Interesse (Professional interest)."
## [3919] "Factors: Active; Routine."
## [3920] "Subscales: Attention Deficit; Hyperactivity/Impulsivity."
## [3921] "Subscales: SWAN-F Inattention (S-IN); SWAN-F Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (S-HY/IM); SWAN-F ADHD score (S-ADHD); SWAN-F Oppositional Defiant Disorder (S- ODD)."
## [3922] "Subscales: Social/Emotional; Academic; Familial; Caregiver/Teacher Support; Other Support; Etiology."
## [3923] "Subscales: Academic impairment; Peer impairment; Familial impairment."
## [3924] "Domains: Children’s behavior; Emotional maladjustment; Parental consistency; Coercive parenting; Positive encouragements; Parent-child relationships."
## [3925] "Factors: Persistence-promoting; Licensing-promoting."
## [3926] "Factors: Effortful Control; Surgency; Affiliativeness."
## [3927] "Subscales: Physical function; Anxiety; Depression; Fatigue; Sleep disturbance; Ability to participate in social roles and activities; Pain interference."
## [3928] "Factors: Spiritual well-being-ideal-Feeling Good (SWB_FG): Relationship with self (FG_S); Relationship with family (FG_F); Relationship with nature (FG_N); Relationship with God (FG_G); Spiritual well-being experience-Living Life (SWB_LL): Relationship with self (LL_S); Relationship with family (LL_F); Relationship with nature (LL_N); Relationship with God (LL_G)."
## [3929] "Factors: Openness to People's Ideas; Stress Tolerance; Deprivation Sensitivity; Joyous Exploration"
## [3930] "Factors: Technical usability (TU); Content interpretation (CI); Content generation (CG); Anticipatory reflection (AR)"
## [3931] "Subscales: Connectivity (CN); Integration (IN); Consistency (CS); Flexibility (FL); Personalization (PL)."
## [3932] "Factors: Anticipated stigma (Family members (FAM); Employers (EMP); Health care workers (HCW)); Enacted stigma (Family members (FAM); Employers (EMP); Health care workers (HCW); Internalized stigma."
## [3933] "Subscales: Internalized HIV stigma; Anticipated HIV stigma; Enacted HIV stigma"
## [3934] "Factors: Friendly-Acceptance; Norms of Behavior; Trusting-Reciprocity; Governance."
## [3935] "Subscale: Teacher of English Preparedness to Include Dyslexics (TEPID). Factors: Knowledge and skills; Stance towards inclusion."
## [3936] "Subscales: General Trauma (GT); Sexual Concerns (SC)."
## [3937] "Subscales: General Trauma (GT); Sexual Concerns (SC)."
## [3938] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitudes; Behaviors; Emotional support for patient and families; Symptom management; Communication; Spiritual support; Decision-making; Staff support; Continuity of care."
## [3939] "Factors: Distress; Obsessions/Fear; Positive Mood."
## [3940] "Subscales: Noticing; Not-Distracting; Attention Regulation; Emotional Awareness; Body Listening; Trusting."
## [3941] "Dimensions: Daily spiritual experiences; Values /beliefs; Forgiveness; Private religious practices; Overcoming religious; Religious support; Spiritual religious history; Commitment; Organizational religiosity; Religious preference Overall religiousness/spirituality."
## [3942] "Factors: Attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Past behavior; Self-identity; Intention."
## [3943] "Subscales: Biological; Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; Psychoanalytic; Cognitive-Behavioral Causes and External Factors; Brain abnormalities."
## [3944] "Subscales: Authenticity; Balance; Challenge."
## [3945] "Subscales: Innovator Role; Broker Role; Producer Role; Director Role; Coordinator Role; Monitor Role; Facilitator Role; Mentor Role."
## [3946] "Subscales: Zero-sum game; Joint profit exchange."
## [3947] "Factors (Domains): Motivation for change (Program needs for improvement; Immediate training needs; Pressures for change); Adequacy of resources (Offices; Training; Staffing: Computer access; E-communication); Staff attributes (Growth; Efficacy; Influence; Adaptability); Organizational climate (Mission; Cohesion; Autonomy; Communication; Stress; Change)."
## [3948] "Factors: Values and Ethics; Systems Thinking; Emotions and Feelings; Actions."
## [3949] "Factors (Subscales): Symptom burden (Fear of recurrence; Body image; Pain; Fatigue; Depressive symptoms; Anxiety); Function (Cognitive; Social; Work; Sexual; Sleep); Health behavior (Unhealthy diet; Physical activity); Health-care seeking skills (Patient-provider communication; Health information; Healthcare competence; Information acquisition); Financial strain (Financial strain)."
## [3950] "Subscales: Reciprocal filial piety; Authoritarian filial piety."
## [3951] "Factors: General trauma; Physical abuse; Emotional abuse; Sexual abuse."
## [3952] "Subscales: General Trauma (Physical Abuse; Emotional Abuse; Sexual Abuse)."
## [3953] "Subscales: Psychological; Psycho-somatic; Economic; Social."
## [3954] "Subscales: Positive metacognitions about emotional and cognitive regulation (MSUQ-PM ECR); Negative metacognitions about uncontrollability and cognitive harm of Smartphone excessive use (MSUQ-NM UH); Positive metacognitions about the social advantages of Smartphone use (MSUQ-PM SR)."
## [3955] "Subscales: Severity; Diversity; Propensity."
## [3956] "Subscales: Restrained; Emotional; External."
## [3957] "Factors: Preoccupation with procurement of pain medication; Maladaptive behaviors and side-effects"
## [3958] "Factors: Cognitive Demand; Emotional Demand; Physical Demand–Controller; Physical Demand–Exertion; Social Demand."
## [3959] "Factors: Contamination; Responsibility; Unacceptable Thoughts; Symmetry."
## [3960] "Subscales: Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity; Perceived benefits; Perceived barriers; Health motivation."
## [3961] "Subscales: Kantianism; Humanism; Faith in Humanity."
## [3962] "Factors: Activities with high balance demands; Basic and instrumental activities of daily living; Community engagement activities."
## [3963] "Subscales: Disengagement; Exhaustion."
## [3964] "Factors: Disheartenment; Sense of failure; Dysphoria; Loss of meaning/Purpose."
## [3965] "Subscales: Respect and Integrity; Planning and Decision-making; Information and Knowledge; Motivation and Encouragement; Involvement of Family."
## [3966] "Subscales: Respect and integrity; Planning and decision-making; Information and knowledge; Motivation and encouragement; Involvement of family."
## [3967] "Subscales: Presence of Meaning (POM); Search for Meaning (SFM)."
## [3968] "Subscales: Identity; Cause; Timeline acute/chronic; Timeline cyclical; Consequences; Personal control; Personal blame; Treatment control; Illness coherence; Emotional representation."
## [3969] "Subscales: Spontaneous Writing; Dictation; Transcription Letters; Transcription Chinese Characters."
## [3970] "Factors: Emotional service expectation; Overall confirmation; Perceived quality; Customer satisfaction; Deep acting emotional labor; Surface acting emotional labor."
## [3971] "Factors: Cognitive engagement; Emotional engagement; Social engagement with students; Social engagement with colleagues."
## [3972] "Subscales: Performance success visualization; Establishment of own goals; Internal Dialogue; Self-reward; Evaluation of beliefs; Self-punishment; Self-observation; Focus on natural rewards; Self-alerts."
## [3973] "Factors: Quality of Academic Development; Social and Academic Commitment; Broadening of Interpersonal Relationships; Opportunity for Student Exchange and Internationalization; Perspective of Professional Success; Concern with Self-image; Development of Transversal Competences."
## [3974] "Factors: Action-related competence; Basic knowledge; Reflective competence."
## [3975] "Factors: Competence satisfaction; Relatedness satisfaction; Autonomy satisfaction."
## [3976] "Factors: Emotional Intensity Morphing Task: Increase condition; Emotional Intensity Morphing Task: Decrease condition; Prisoner's Dilemma; Affective Go/NoGo; Moral Emotions Task; Emotional Face Recognition Task: Face version; Emotional Face Recognition Task: Eyes version; Social Information Preference Task; Reinforcement Learning Task; Monetary Incentive Reward Task; Progressive Ratio Task; Adapted Cambridge Gambling Task; Ultimatum Game."
## [3977] "Factors: Self-deception (SDE); Creation impression management (IM)."
## [3978] "Factors: Moral; Social network"
## [3979] "Factors: Linguistic intelligence; Logical-mathematical intelligence; Visual-spatial intelligence; Kinesthetic or corporal-kinetic intelligence; Musical intelligence; Interpersonal intelligence; Intrapersonal intelligence; Naturalistic intelligence."
## [3980] "Factors: Self-regulation; Openness/Cognitive engagement; Openness/Bodily and socio-emotional engagement; Negative affectivity."
## [3981] "Factors: Risk-taking; Innovativeness; Proactiveness"
## [3982] "Dimensions: Risk Taking; Innovativeness; Proactiveness."
## [3983] "Factors: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder inattention (ADHD-IN); Hyperactivity/impulsivity (ADHD-HI)"
## [3984] "Factors: Interpersonal competence; Intrapersonal competence."
## [3985] "Factors: Awe; Inspiring Energy."
## [3986] "Subscales: Micro Discriminations; Macro Discriminations"
## [3987] "Subscales: Negative affect; Anxiety and PTSS; Social and self-image"
## [3988] "Factors: Local foods and restaurants; Destination management; Customized service and service staff; Natural environment and landscape; Local hospitality; Activity and events; Building and architecture."
## [3989] "Factors: Relational Need for Inclusion; Collective Need for Inclusion"
## [3990] "Factors: Temporal consistency; Credibility; Originality"
## [3991] "Factors: Self-care maintenance; Management; Confidence."
## [3992] "Factors: Negative Emotion (NE); Interaction with People and the Environment (IPE); Intimacy (IN); Religiosity (RE); Physical Symptoms (PS); Bulbar Function (BF)."
## [3993] "Factors: Negative emotion; Interaction with people and the environment; Intimacy; Religiosity; Physical symptoms; Bulbar function."
## [3994] "Factors: Personal Altruism; Institutionally-directed Altruism."
## [3995] "Factors: Care; Challenge; Clarify; Confer; Consolidate; Control; Captivate."
## [3996] "Factors: Auto‐regulatory behavior; External emotion management; Collegiality; Internal emotion management."
## [3997] "Factors: Physical Well-Being; Functional Well-Being; Emotional Well-Being; Social Well-Being; Clarity of Thought and Decisions"
## [3998] "Factors: Social stigma; Stigma experience; Self-stigma."
## [3999] "Factors: Emotional support; Instrumental support; Role modeling; Creative work-family."
## [4000] "Factors: Physical aggression; Indirect aggression; Verbal aggression."
## [4001] "Factors: Engagement; Identification; Emotion; Dysfunction"
## [4002] "Factors: Minority ethnic consciousness (MEC); Minority ethnic exploration (MEE); Minority ethnic involvement (MEIV); Minority ethnic alienation (MEA); Minority ethnic inheritance (MEIH) Minority Ethnic Mastery (MEM)."
## [4003] "Factors: Minority ethnic consciousness (MEC); Minority ethnic exploration (MEE); Minority ethnic involvement (MEIV); Minority ethnic alienation (MEA); Minority ethnic inheritance (MEIH) Minority Ethnic Mastery (MEM)."
## [4004] "Factors: Approach-Task; Avoidance-Task; Approach-Self; Avoidance-Self; Approach-Other; Avoidance-Other."
## [4005] "Subscales: Perceived Physician Knowledge; Perceived Concern."
## [4006] "Factors: Interactional justice; Formal procedures."
## [4007] "Subscales: College Response to LGBTQ Students; LGBTQ Stigma"
## [4008] "Factors: Alienation from the self; Alienation from others; Alienation from Israeli society."
## [4009] "Factors: Strategic Hypervigilance (CSBS-SH); Affective Suppression (CSBS-AS)."
## [4010] "Subscales: Physical Component Summary Score (PCS12); Mental Component Summary Score (MCS12)."
## [4011] "Factors: GL Behavior (B); Environmental Attitude towards GL (A1); Attitude towards Costs of GL (A2); Subjective Norm about GL (SN); Perceived Behavior Control Related GL (PBC); Intention towards GL (I)."
## [4012] "Factors: Erroneous beliefs about weight control; Experience of pleasant emotions when eating; Importance given to body weight."
## [4013] "Negative performances indicators; Marketing Illegitimacy indicators; Broadness of the marketing communications indicators"
## [4014] "Factors: Customer orientation; Employee commitment; Customer performance; Interfunctional coordination."
## [4015] "Factors: Civic Life; Self-care, Mobility and Work Capacity; Work and Domestic Life; Social and Economic Contribution."
## [4016] "Subscales: Fear; Joy; Surprise; Disgust; Sadness; Anger."
## [4017] "Factors: Unrealistic fears about the abortion and fantasies about the pregnancy; Decision conflict; Negative abortion attitudes; General indecisiveness."
## [4018] "Subscales: Inattention; Hyperactivity/Impulsivity; Total."
## [4019] "Factors: Excessive social use at work (ESU); Excessive hedonic use at work (EHU); Excessive cognitive use at work (ECU); Technology-work conflict (TWC); Strain (STR); Job performance (JP)."
## [4020] "Factors: Trait beliefs; Goal orientations"
## [4021] "Factors: Place Identity; Place Dependence; Social Bonding; Behavioral Loyalty."
## [4022] "Subscales: Grid dimension (GRI); Group dimension (GRO); Risk Perception (RP); Organizational Commitment (OC)."
## [4023] "Subscales: Intention to use; Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Perceived risk; Financial literacy."
## [4024] "Factors: Integrity; Self-sacrifice; Building community; Empowering people; Emotional healing; Visioning"
## [4025] "Subscales: Physical; Motivational; Affective; Cognitive."
## [4026] "Subscales: Metaawareness; (Dis)Identification with internal experience; (Non)Reactivity to internal experience."
## [4027] "Subscales:"
## [4028] "Subscales: Trust and respect; Equality; Fair-treatment; Autonomy; Self-esteem."
## [4029] "Factor structure: Unidimensional"
## [4030] "Subscales: Non-reactivity; Observe; Act with awareness; Describe; Non-judging."
## [4031] "Subscales: Dangerousness; Unpredictability."
## [4032] "Subscales: Reflection on group work; Attitude towards group work; Knowledge of interprofessional working; Skill in group work."
## [4033] "Factors: Avoidance; Weight control; Mood improvement; Lack of enjoyment; Exercise rigidity."
## [4034] "Subscales: Demands; Influence and development; Interpersonal relationships and leadership; Job insecurity; Strain-effects and outcomes."
## [4035] "Subscales: Self-psychological security; Social environmental security; Natural environmental security."
## [4036] "Subscales: Individual collectivism; Vertical collectivism; Horizontal collectivism; Horizontal individualism; Attitude toward the CSR ad; Attitude toward products; Social status."
## [4037] "Factors: Interprofessional Teamwork and Team-Based Practice; Roles/Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice; Patient Outcomes from Collaborative Practice."
## [4038] "Subscales: Equipment Application; Platform Application; Application Time."
## [4039] "Subscales: Danger to self; Danger to others."
## [4040] "Subscales: Autonomy needs satisfaction; Competence needs satisfaction; Related needs satisfaction."
## [4041] "Subscales: Drive to excel; Catalytic learning; Enterprising spirit; Dynamic sensors."
## [4042] "Factors: Unstructured play; Structured play or activities conducted with an adult; Electronic play."
## [4043] "Subscales: Safety and familiarity; Setting drink limits; Pacing strategies; Minimizing intoxication."
## [4044] "Factors: Attraction; Structure; Affect; Social."
## [4045] "Factors: Opinions; Motivations; Competence."
## [4046] "Factors: Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Enjoyment; Customisation; Subjective norm; Attitudes towards the app; Attitudes towards the brand; Purchase frequency; Loyalty towards the brand."
## [4047] "Domains: Entitativity; Similarity; Interactivity; Common goals; Boundaries; History of interactions."
## [4048] "Factors: Supporting well-being; Factional; Effective team leadership; Collaboration within the organization; Valuing residents and relationships; Social distance from residents; Alignment of staff with organizational values."
## [4049] "Subscales: Emotional well-being (EW); Interpersonal relations (IR); Material well-being (MW); Personal development (PD); Physical well-being (PW); Self-determination (SD); Social inclusion (SI); Rights (RI)."
## [4050] "Subscales: Fit between Instructional Methods and Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs); Fit between ILOs and Assessment Tasks; Fit between Assessment Tasks and Instructional Methods; Flexibility in Adjusting Instructional Methods."
## [4051] "Factors: Classical prejudice against asylum seekers (CL-PAAS); Conditional prejudice against asylum seekers (CO-PAAS)."
## [4052] "Factors: Fantasy; Flow; Evaluation; Aesthetics; Physical Attractiveness; Inspiration; Intention to try track cycling."
## [4053] "Subscales: Brand reputation; Brand experiences; Brand attitudes; Behavioral intention."
## [4054] "Factors: Home-state attachment (HSA); Consumer ethnocentrism (CET); Loyalty to local businesses (LLB); Attitude to Local-Origin Labelling (LAB); Attitude to Government Intervention (GI)."
## [4055] "Subscales: Entitativity; Group structure."
## [4056] "Subscales: Family; God; Environment; Self-concern"
## [4057] "Subscales: Satisfaction; Goal setting and planning; Physical interaction."
## [4058] "Subscales: School Scale; ICT Environment; Policy Support; Operation & Training."
## [4059] "Subscales: Malevolence; Benevolence; Omnipotence; Resistance; Engagement."
## [4060] "Subscales: Immigration; Lack of nativism; Inclination to employ foreigners; Gender imbalance; Lack of justice in the distribution of resources; Lack of meritocracy."
## [4061] "Factors: Work functioning; Educational functioning; Financial functioning; Health functioning - Health promotion; Health functioning - Risk avoidance; Health functioning - Self care; Intimate relationship functioning; Parental functioning; Broader social functioning; Paid work satisfaction; Educational satisfaction; Financial satisfaction; Health satisfaction; Intimate relationship satisfaction; Parental satisfaction; Broader social satisfaction"
## [4062] "Subscales: Performance efficacy; Intrinsic motivation; Anthropomorphism; Social influence; Facilitating condition; Emotions."
## [4063] "Subscales: Intention to initiate a negotiation; Expectancy; Instrumentality."
## [4064] "Factors: Malevolence; Benevolence; Resistance; Engagement"
## [4065] "Subscales: Telepresence; Coherence; Visual complexity; Legibility; Mystery; Aesthetics; Intention to approach; Intention to visit; Intention to purchase; Involvement; Style of processing; Familiarity; Category knowledge."
## [4066] "Subscales: Speech; Play; Social engagement; Behavior."
## [4067] "Scales: Person-Job Fit Scale (PJFS); Person-Organization Fit Scale (POFS); Person-Group Fit Scale (PGFS); Person Supervisor Fit Scale (PSFS). Factors: Values; Goals; Attributes; Job Satisfaction; Emotional Exhaustion; Turnover Intention."
## [4068] "Subscales: Drug use for social and sexual enhancement; Perceptions of drug risk; Acceptability of drug use among gay friends."
## [4069] "Subscales: State; Trait."
## [4070] "Factors: Consistency; Credibility; Clarity; Willingness to use; Completeness; Immersion"
## [4071] "Subscales: Core Stockholm Syndrome; Psychological Damage; Love-Dependence."
## [4072] "Factors: Core Stockholm Syndrome (Core); Psychological Damage (Damage), Love-Dependence (Love)."
## [4073] "Subscales: Seguridad (Security); Preocupación familiar (Family concern); Interferencia de los padres (Parental interference); Valor de la autoridad de los padres (Value in parental authority); Autosuficiencia y rencor contra los padres (Self-reliance and resentment against parents); Traumatismo infantile (Child trauma); Permisividad parental (Parental permission)."
## [4074] "Factors: Identity Diffusion (General factor); Consistency in self-concept; Commitment to roles and positive cultural identification; Stability of attributes, talents, interests, perspectives and moral guidelines; Emotional and cognitive self-reflection; Stability of interpersonal relationships; Consciousness of a defined nucleus."
## [4075] "Subscales: Salience; Tolerance; Mood modification; Relapse; Withdrawal; Conflict; Problem."
## [4076] "Subscales: Lack of confidence; Worry; Emotionality; Interference."
## [4077] "Factors: Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity; Health consciousness; WeChat self-efficacy; WeChat health information reliability; WeChat health information seeking; Social support; Psychological well-being"
## [4078] "Subscales: Engagement; Perseverance; Optimism; Connectedness; Happiness."
## [4079] "Subscales: Prosocial Interaction; Withdrawal/Agonism."
## [4080] "Factors: Sexual harassment; Burnout; customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors; Psychological safety."
## [4081] "Factors: Directive-Behavior (DBF); Self-Continuity (SCF); Social-Bonding functions (SBF)."
## [4082] "Subscales: Expertise; Trustworthiness; Intention."
## [4083] "Subscales: Experiential value; Relevance; Congruence; Social vigor; Psychological zest; Emotion spark; Flow; On-the-spot behavior (OSB)."
## [4084] "Factors: General Flexibility (EDFLIX-GF); Food and Exercise Flexibility (EDFLIX-FoEx); Weight and Shape Flexibility (EDFLIX-WeSh)."
## [4085] "Subscales: Nutrition Best Practices; Infant Feeding Best Practices; Physical Activity Best Practices."
## [4086] "Subscales: General; Health; Smoke-free."
## [4087] "Subscales: Aspirational capital; Familial capital; Navigational capital; Resistant capital. Factors: Identification of oppression in society; Motivation to transform oppressive structures."
## [4088] "Subscales: Own resource (OR); Burden (B); Conversational partner (CP); Resource in nursing care (RNC)."
## [4089] "Factors: Family as a resource in nursing care (Fam-RNC); Family as a burden (Fam-B); Promoting family involvement (Prom-FI); Building-resilient families (Bld-RF)"
## [4090] "Factors: Respectful interaction; Competence and contribution; Equality; Inherent value; General dignity perceptions; Workplace indignity."
## [4091] "Domains: Avoidant; Obsessive-compulsive; Narcissistic; Borderline; Antisocial; Schizotypal."
## [4092] "Factors: Use of Mobile Technologies (Learning; Online Participation; Communication; Recording; Entertainment; Navigation); Mobile Technology Attitudes and Beliefs (Positive; Negative; Willingness; Attachment)."
## [4093] "Factors: Enjoyment; Affection; Identity; Power; Participation; Understanding; Safety; wanderplaner.ch; Economic Goals"
## [4094] "Factors: Intention; Attitude; Moral obligation; Materialism; Perceived importance of an ethical issue."
## [4095] "Subscales: Service quality value; Authentic experience value; Emotional experience value; Social value; Utility value."
## [4096] "Factors: Belief-in-self; Belief-in-others; Emotional competence; Engaged living. Subscales: Self-efficacy; Self-awareness; Persistence; School support; Family coherence; Peer support; Emotion regulation; Empathy; Self-control; Optimism; Gratitude; Zest."
## [4097] "Subscales: Conversation communication pattern; Conformity orientation."
## [4098] "Subscales: Teaching; Prompting; Praise; Tangibles; Majors; Minors; Cross-setting implementation."
## [4099] "Subscales: Empathic concern; Perspective-taking; Personal distress; Fantasy."
## [4100] "Subscales: Classroom; Hallway; Cafeteria; Playground; Restroom; Bus; Arrival/dismissal."
## [4101] "Subscales: Child Affect (CA); Adult Affect (AA); Child Cognitions (CC); Adult Cognitions (AC); Child Behavior (CB); Adult Behavior (AB)."
## [4102] "Subscales: Behavior; Caregiver relief; Contentment; Doing activities; Education; Energy; Face-to-face communication; Family roles; Finances; Security; Self-reliance; Social versatility; Supervision."
## [4103] "Factors: Enabling and Partnership; Providing General Information; Providing Specific Information; Coordinated and Comprehensive Care; Respectful and Supportive Care."
## [4104] "Subscales: Enabling and partnership; Providing general information; Providing specific information; Coordinated and comprehensive care; Respectful and supportive care."
## [4105] "Subscales: Salience; Reactibility; Monitoring."
## [4106] "Subscales: Distress; Self-devaluation (Self-worth)."
## [4107] "Subscales: Motivation; Ability."
## [4108] "Subscales: Self-stigma; Omission stigma; Provider stigma."
## [4109] "Subscales: Exercise participation level of friends; Exercise participation level of parents; Exercise intention; Current exercise behavior; Action control; Exercise constraints."
## [4110] "Factors: Affectivity; Social Identity."
## [4111] "Factors: Quality of fantasy; Imaginary playmate; Imaginary relatives."
## [4112] "Domains: Financial; Communication; Comprehension/Planning; Transportation; Household skills."
## [4113] "Factors: Clarifying Rationale for Medication; Encouraging Patient Adherence Behavior."
## [4114] "Subscales: Organizational Structures; Organizational Processes; Organizational Resources; Organizational Communication."
## [4115] "Factors: Practice level; Patient resources; Administrative; External personnel; External resources; Internal resources; On-site personnel; Information technology; Educational resources; Community resources; Educational and community resources; Information technology and provider extenders."
## [4116] "Subscales: Traditionalism; Do-it-yourself (DIY); Time scarcity; Processed food; Eating out; Convenience shopping."
## [4117] "Factors: Social norm; Perceived barrier in reducing meat consumption; Environmental concern; Perceived benefits from reducing meat consumption; Attitude toward reducing meat consumption; Intention to reduce meat consumption."
## [4118] "Subscales: Reporting to authority; Comforting; Aggressive; Solution-focused."
## [4119] "Subscales: Cognitive; Affective; Conative; Novelty."
## [4120] "Subscales: Amusement; Parent-oriented anxiety; Parent-oriented frustration; Child-oriented sympathy; Child-oriented empathy."
## [4121] "Dimensions: Understanding of TPI; Development of the TPI in the teaching staff of different educational levels; Relationship between the professional identity of teachers and that of other professionals; Aspects that contribute to the construction of TPI during initial training."
## [4122] "Factors: Life and Pain Issues; Rejection Issues; Sexuality Issues."
## [4123] "Factors: Pleasure; Reinforcing the relationship; Satisfying one’s sexual partner; Desire to be appreciated; Boosting self-esteem; Constraint/submission; Dominance desire"
## [4124] "Factors (Subscales): Student Maltreatment by Teachers; Student Violence against Students (Verbal/Social/Physical Violence; Threats/Vandalism; Sexual Harassment); School Victimization by School Peers (Physical/Threatening Violence; Verbal/Social Violence; Sexual Harassment)."
## [4125] "Factors: Travel Benefits (Experiential benefits; Health benefits; Relaxation benefits); Travel Importance (Value Relevance; Social Influence; Travel Importance; Travel Knowledge; Travel Behavior)."
## [4126] "Factors: Bullying; Fighting; Victimization"
## [4127] "Subscales: General Prejudice; College-Specific Prejudice; College-Specific Social Distance; Perceptions of Campus Mental Health (MH) Culture; Number of MH Conversation Partners."
## [4128] "Subscales: Engineering Self-Efficacy (ES); Engineering Career Expectations (EC); Sense of Belonging (SB); Coping Self-Efficacy (CS)."
## [4129] "Factors: Academic engagement (Academic learning [ALS]); Online engagement (OES); Cognitive engagement (CES); Social engagement with teachers (Social engagement with teacher [SETS]); Social engagement with peers (Peer engagement [PES]); Beyond-class engagement (BES); Affective engagement (Affective engagement [AFES])."
## [4130] "Factors: Anxiety about the future; Physical wellbeing; Psychological wellbeing; Denial of ageing; Isolation; Activity."
## [4131] "Factors: Negative Thoughts About Growing Older; Family and Religion; Positive Aspects of Ageing; Perceived Personal Attributes."
## [4132] "Factors: Cognitive reappraisal; Expressive suppression."
## [4133] "Subscales: Loss of control of smartphone use; Nomophobia; Smartphone-mediated communication; Emotion regulation through smartphone usage; Smartphone support to romantic relationships; Smartphone tasks support; Awareness of smartphone negative impact."
## [4134] "Factors: Control by others/Contrôle par autrui (CA); Personal control/Contrôle personnel (CP); Stability/Stabilité (S); Locus of causality/Lieu de causalité (L)."
## [4135] "Factors: Psychological; Physical/Cognitive; Financial; Work/School."
## [4136] "Subscales: Knowledge; Performance; Motivation; Tools/Environment; Feedback-Procedural; Feedback-RRI; Self-Efficacy."
## [4137] "Subscales: Attainment; Intrinsic; Utility; Cost."
## [4138] "Subscales: Pre-contemplation; Contemplation; Prepared for action self-evaluative; Prepared for action behavioral; Uncertain maintenance; Proactive maintenance."
## [4139] "Subscales: General compensation; Appointments; Cooking; Finances; Medications; Shopping; Transportation."
## [4140] "Factors: Basic Cognitive Functions; Social Cognition."
## [4141] "Factors: Basic Cognitive Functions; Social Cognition."
## [4142] "Subscales: Personal role responsibility for RTW; Team role responsibility for RTW; Perceived beneficial impact of RTW."
## [4143] "Factors: Vivacity; Spatiality; Order."
## [4144] "Subscales: Feelings about memory; Memory deficiency; Memory strategies."
## [4145] "Subscales: Campus Disruption; Substance Use & Weapon-Carrying; School Climate; School Safety; Physical–Verbal Harassment; Weapons & Physical Attacks; Sexual Harassment"
## [4146] "Factors: Vision and competence; People orientation; Caring disposition; Ethical role model; Social competence; Self-reflection and self-understanding; Positive views about human beings; Unchangeable and dark human nature"
## [4147] "Subscales: Prolonged reactivity; Reactivity to work overload; Reactivity to social conflict; Reactivity to social evaluation; Reactivity to failure."
## [4148] "Factors: Affection-communication; Control-structure."
## [4149] "Subscales: Autonomy; Competence; Relatedness."
## [4150] "Subscales: Social; Enhancement; Coping; Conformity; Expansion."
## [4151] "Factors: Positive and Control Expectations; Positive Memories; Benefit Findings; Responsibility for the Situation"
## [4152] "Factors: Locus of causality (L); Stability (S); Personal Controllability (PC); External Controllability (CE)."
## [4153] "Factors: Structural Discrimination (Strukturelle Diskriminierung); Personal Contact (Persönlicher Kontakt)."
## [4154] "Factors: Perceived Cognitive Deficits; Comments from Others; Perceived Cognitive Abilities; Effects on Quality of Life."
## [4155] "Factors: Excessiveness; Compulsion; Distress; Reassurance Seeking."
## [4156] "Subscales: Essential Sex and Gender; Normative Behaviour"
## [4157] "Subscales: Knowledge of highway pollution; Attitude towards environmental issues; Self-efficacy for using maps."
## [4158] "Subscales: Leader facilitation and support; Professional and organizational esprit; Conflict and ambiguity; Regulations, organization, and pressure; Job variety, challenge, and autonomy; Job standards; Workgroup cooperation, friendliness, and warmth."
## [4159] "Scales: Anticipation; Savoring the moment; Reminiscing."
## [4160] "Factor: Need to Belong; Nostalgia proneness; Facebook intensity; Ad-evoked nostalgia on Facebook; Self-brand connections; Brand engagement behaviors on Facebook."
## [4161] "Factors: Perceived Feminine Frivolity and Selfishness; Perceived Feminine Weakness; Within-Family Patriarchal Attitudes; Extra-Familial Patriarchal Attitudes."
## [4162] "Factors: Children’s Expression and Responsibility; Decision Making by the Adult."
## [4163] "Factors: Observed Children's Choice; Observed Conditions for Participation."
## [4164] "Subscales: Creating and Sustaining Negative Emotion to Avoid Negative Contrasts; Discomfort with Emotional Shifts"
## [4165] "Subscales: Worry to Avoid Negative Emotional Shifts (14 items); Worry Creates and Sustains Negative Emotion (9 items); Worry to Create Positive Contrast (7 items)."
## [4166] "Scales: Participation; Environment. Factors: Participation Frequency; Participation Involvement; Desire for change; Environmental supports; Environmental resources."
## [4167] "Subscales: Acceptance; Evocation; Partnership; MI Non-adherent."
## [4168] "Factors: Worries about child health; Fear of giving birth; Concern about own appearance."
## [4169] "Factors: Sustained executive function; Memory of information; Consciousness of effort; Daily life; Distractibility; Alertness."
## [4170] "Factors: Attention and memory of information (AMI); Daily living cognition” (DLC); Memory” (MEM); Medical memory (MM)."
## [4171] "Subscales: Cues; Detection; Impact; Intention; Likelihood; Response benefits; Response costs; Response efficacy; Sanctions; Self-efficacy; Social norms."
## [4172] "Subscales: Knowledge beliefs; Learning beliefs. Factors: Certain knowledge; Simple knowledge; Acquisition of knowledge; Ability to learn; Speed of learning; Value of learning."
## [4173] "Factors: Concerns of Occasional Encounters; Avoidance of Personal Contact; Responsibility and Blame; Liberalism; Nondiscrimination; Social Policy."
## [4174] "Subscales: Acceptance of one's life; Adaptation; Acceptance of passing."
## [4175] "Subscales: Knowledge of highway pollution; Orientation towards science; Orientation towards technology; Expectations for community engagement; Conversations with parents; Conversations with teachers; Conversations with friends; Conversations with classmates; Environmentalism."
## [4176] "Factors: Affective; Behavioral; Cognitive."
## [4177] "Factors: Cultural Relevance; Connectedness to Nature; Self-Efficacy."
## [4178] "Subscales: Machiavellianism; Narcissism; Psychopathy."
## [4179] "Subscales: Specialized Supports; Classroom-Based Emotional/Behavioral Supports; Academic Supports; Reduced Expectations; Referrals."
## [4180] "Factors: Engagement; Communication; Shared friendships"
## [4181] "Factors: Laterality (PSAS-LAT); Dynamic coordination (PSAS-DC); Tonic-postural control (PSAS-TPC); Motor execution (PSAS-ME); Balance (PSAS-BAL); Respiratory control (PEAS-RC); Body image (PEAS-BI); Motor dissociation (PEAS-MD); Visual–motor coordination (PEAS-VMC); Spatial orientation (PEAS-SO); Emotional control (ESAS-EC); Social relationships (ESAS SR)"
## [4182] "Factors: Desire to Use (Deseo de uso); Influence in Social Circle (Influencia en círculo social); Lack of Control Over Desire (Descontrol sobre el deseo)."
## [4183] "Factors: Callous; Uncaring."
## [4184] "Dimensions: Autonomy Support; Involvement; Structure."
## [4185] "Factors: Attitude; Perceived usefulness; Ease of use; Image; Perceived norms; Perceived control; Habit; Environmental constraints; Behavioral intention; Use frequency."
## [4186] "Factors: Social component; Physical component"
## [4187] "Subscales: Academic Training of Quality; Social and Academic Commitment; Extension of Interpersonal Relationships; Opportunity for Students' Interchanges and Internationalization; Professional Success and Perspectives; Self-image Concerns; Development of Transversal Competencies."
## [4188] "Scales: Social-behavioral skill; Interpersonal Relationship."
## [4189] "Factors: Adaptive (Strategizing; Help-seeking; Comfort-seeking; Self-encouragement; Commitment). Maladaptive (Confusion; Escape; Concealment; Self-pity; Rumination; Projection)."
## [4190] "Factors: Religious/Spiritual Coping; Coping Skills; Healthy Lifestyle; Information Search); Adaptability."
## [4191] "Subscales: Adaptive (Strategizing; Help Seeking; Comfort Seeking; Self-Encouragement; Commitment). Maladaptive (Confusion; Escape; Concealment; Self-Pity; Rumination; Projection)."
## [4192] "Scales: Attitudes towards police attitudes toward people who use drugs (PWUD), drug policies & public health; Attitudes towards pre-booking diversion program."
## [4193] "Subscales: Intentional nonadherence; Unintentional nonadherence."
## [4194] "Subscales: Try to avoid experiencing positive emotions (AVOID-POS ); Try to avoid experiencing negative emotions (AVOID-NEG); Try to experience positive emotions (EXP-POS); Try to experience negative emotions (EXP-NEG)."
## [4195] "Factors: Awareness of Freedom; Personal Choice."
## [4196] "Subscales: Reactive aggression; Proactive aggression."
## [4197] "Subscales: Heavy housework, home repair, lawn work and gardening; Sports and recreation; Light housework and caring for another person; Leisure and occupational activities."
## [4198] "Factors: Social Cynicism; Social Complexity; Fate Control; Reward for Effort; Religiosity"
## [4199] "Factors: Inability to fulfil parental commitments and responsibilities; Abortion panic; Life difficulty and growing instability; Abnormality and violating childbearing norms; Negative physical and emotional consequences; Social deprivations and role conflict."
## [4200] "Factors: Organizational Culture and Climate; Professional Prejudice; Non-Recovery Principles; Working Alliance with Caseload."
## [4201] "Subscales: Emotional Attachment; Striving for Solidarity and Cooperation."
## [4202] "Subscales: Trust; Profit; Learning; Social."
## [4203] "Factors: Emotion Perception (Emotionswahrnehmung); Emotion Use (Emotionsnutzung); Emotion Knowledge (Emotionswissen); ER Intrapersonal; ER Interpersonal."
## [4204] "Factors: Emotional family resources; Happiness; Budget money attitude; Compulsive shopping."
## [4205] "Subscales: Control versus flexibility; Supportive learning climate; Instills confidence through caring; Respectful sharing."
## [4206] "Factors: Expression of emotion; External situations; Mixed emotions; Wishes; Beliefs; Rules of Expression."
## [4207] "Subscales: Closeness; Support; Monitoring; Communication; Conflict; Peer Approval."
## [4208] "Subscales: How your child uses gestures to ask for something (A); How your child uses gestures to get you to notice something (B); Types of words your child uses (C); Your child's requests for help (D); Your child's interests (E); How your child uses words to get you to notice something (F); Your child's questions and comments about things (G); Your child's questions and comments about themselves/other people (H); Your child's use of words in activities with others (I); Teasing and your child's sense of humor (J); Your child's interest in words and language (K); Your child's interests when talking (L); How your child adapts conversation to other people (M); How your child is building longer sentences and stories (N)."
## [4209] "Components: Comprehensibility; Manageability; Meaningfulness."
## [4210] "Factors: Learning support; (Lernförderlichkeit); Interest (Interesse); Educational support (Pädagogische Unterstützung); Learning community (Lerngemeinschaft)."
## [4211] "Factors: Suicide risk; Depression"
## [4212] "Factors: Manipulation; Praise; Vigilance; Monopolizing time; Therapy; Gifts; Violence."
## [4213] "Components: Manipulation; Praise; Vigilance; Monopolizing Time; Therapy; Gifts; Violence."
## [4214] "Constructs: Behavioral intention toward Collaborative Collective Behaviors (CCBs); Goal intention; Seriousness of environmental problems; Responsibility for the environmental problems; Effectiveness of CCBs; Perceived importance of CCBs; Avoidance of environmental problems by Individual behaviors; Responsibility for CCBs; Evaluation of ability; Evaluation of opportunity; Evaluation of social norms; Evaluation of costs; Evaluation of benefits; Active interest in environmental problems; Perceived competence; Self-efficacy for changing present situation; Self-efficacy for problem solving; Attachment to the community."
## [4215] "Subscales: Dispositional HF; School HF; Hobby HF; Screen Time HF; Scenario HF. Factors: Failing to Notice the World; Failing to Attend to Personal Needs; Getting \"Stuck\" on Small Details."
## [4216] "Subscales: Food Selection and Planning; Food Preparation; Food Safety and Storage."
## [4217] "Subscales: Social enjoyment; Information gathering and validation; Negative influence; Group protection; Emotion venting."
## [4218] "Subscales: Shared language (SL); Shared vision (SV); Social trust (ST); Reciprocity (R)."
## [4219] "Subscales: Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Attitude toward use; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Intention to use."
## [4220] "Subscales: Comfort with Negative Feelings; Flexible and Negotiable Stance."
## [4221] "Factors: Analytical Part; Evaluative Part; Inferential Part."
## [4222] "Factors: Proactive; Knowledgeable; Supportive; Perseverant."
## [4223] "Factors: Encouragement; Reinforcement; Instruction; Modeling; Intrinsic motivation; Social self-efficacy with coach; Self-efficacy; Self-regulation."
## [4224] "Factors: Changes in physical status; Changes in self-concept; Colostomy care; Changes in familial and social interactions."
## [4225] "Subscales: Physician-patient communication; Perceived quality of internet health information; Decision-making preference; Physician-patient concordance; Patient compliance."
## [4226] "Subscales: Intimacy; Passion; Commitment."
## [4227] "Factors: Intention to interact; Convenience of Web-based health communities; Inconvenience of physical health facilities; Ease of use; Perceived synchronicity; Inaccessibility; Discontinuity."
## [4228] "Subscales: Control versus flexibility; Supportive learning climate; Confidence through caring; Appreciation of life meaning; Respectful sharing."
## [4229] "Factors: Affect; Efficacy; Importance; Future self."
## [4230] "Subscales: Baby humans; Baby animals; Animate objects."
## [4231] "Factors: information seeking; Motivation to reengage; Persistence; Self-regulation; Value."
## [4232] "Factors: Prosociality Dimension; Negative Emotionality Dimension; Daring Dimension."
## [4233] "Subscales: Masculine-Typed behaviors; Feminine-Typed behaviors"
## [4234] "Subscales: First contact-utilization; First contact-accessibility; Ongoing care; Coordination; Comprehensiveness (services available); Comprehensiveness (services provided); Family-centeredness; Community orientation; Culturally competent."
## [4235] "Factors: Victim blaming; Rape minimization."
## [4236] "Factors: Comfort and Security; Disturbance. Subscales: Humans; Dogs; Cats."
## [4237] "Subscales: Pro-Person-centred counselling (Pro-PCC); Pro-Low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy self-help (Pro-LICBT)."
## [4238] "Subscales: Views about science teachers; Views about science lessons; Views about the importance of science; Views about the nature of science; Self-views in science learning."
## [4239] "Subscales: Perceived responsibility (PR); Perceived parental weight (PPW); Perceived child weight (PCW); Concern for child weight (CN); Child control (CC); Emotion regulation (ER); Food as reward (FR); Monitoring (M); Pressure to eat (PE), Restriction for health (RH)."
## [4240] "Factors: Specific Module for Chronic Gastritis (CG); Physical (GPH); Psychological (GPS); Social (GSO)."
## [4241] "Factors: Active private Facebook use; Active public Facebook use; Passive Facebook use"
## [4242] "Factors: Well-Being (Negative Emotion; Engagement; Competence; Positive Emotion); Creativity (Interest in New Things; Intrinsic Motivation)."
## [4243] "Sections: Assessment of the general status or level of alertness; Oral Inspection; Water swallowing test."
## [4244] "Factors: Obsessions; Compulsions."
## [4245] "Factors: PC expectations from the manager; PC expectations related to career growth and development; PC expectations related to job and work environment."
## [4246] "Subscales: Analytical psychotherapy; Psychotherapy based on depth psychology."
## [4247] "Factors: Uncertainty Avoidance; Individualism–Collectivism; Perceived Severity; Perceived Susceptibility; Response Efficacy; Self-efficacy; Response Cost; Behavioral Intent."
## [4248] "Factors: Verbally aggressive; Dislike; Awkward; Demanding requests."
## [4249] "Subscales: Intrapersonal emotional competencies; Interpersonal emotional competencies."
## [4250] "Subscales: Ehrenkranz School of Social Work subscale; SWSE-Practice Skills Inventory subscale."
## [4251] "Domains: Your understanding of proverbs; Learning and teaching of English proverbs; Your knowledge of proverbs; Your experience of learning English proverbs."
## [4252] "Subscales: Self-care Maintenance; Self-care Management; Self-care Confidence."
## [4253] "Factors: Technician/manual; Scientific/investigator; Artistic/creative; Social/assistance; Business/persuasive; Office/administrative."
## [4254] "Constructs: Consumer xenocentrism; Consumer ethnocentrism; Consumer cosmopolitanism; Product country image; Brand attitude; Purchase intentions; Product category involvement; Price sensitivity. Subfactors: Perceived inferiority; Social aggrandizement; Open-mindedness; Diversity appreciation; Consumption transcending borders."
## [4255] "Factors: Perception and understanding of emotions; Expression and naming of emotions; Regulation and management of emotions."
## [4256] "Factors: Ethical Perceptions; Trustworthiness; Perceived Risk; Revealing Information; Taking Actions; Information Falsification; Perceived Benefits."
## [4257] "Factors: Abilities-demands misfit (ADO) (P-O misfit); Needs-supplies misfit (NSO) (P-O misfit); Abilities-demands misfit (ADT) (P-T misfit); Needs-supplies (NST) (P-T misfit); Person-people misfit (PPF) (P-P misfit); Job performance (JP)."
## [4258] "Subscales: Children's Connection to Nature Scale (CCNS); Affinity for Nature; Outdoor Play Attitude; Outdoor Play Behavior."
## [4259] "Factors: Consumer values (CABV); Trust in ethical advertising (TEA); Ethical purchase decision involvement (EPDI)."
## [4260] "Factors: Information validation; Information gathering; Relationship building; Protection; Social enjoyment; Negative influence."
## [4261] "Factors: State anxiety; Arousal; Emotional regulation motivation; Information sharing motivation; Intention to share."
## [4262] "Factors: Students' learning cognition; Learning self-efficacy; Learning initiative; Learning effect; Teachers' affective support; Teaching methods; Learning environment."
## [4263] "Factors: Eating Problems; Emotional Problems; Attention Problems; Problems of Language and Communication; Problems of Proximity Seeking and Body Contact."
## [4264] "Factors (Scales); Satisfaction with life (Satisfaction with self; Personal relationships and satisfaction with the behavior of health professionals and others); Feelings about living with HD (Negative emotions; Positive emotions; Shame and embarrassment)."
## [4265] "Components (Subscales): Practical aspects of care-giving (Levels of support and access to professionals'; Long term and genetic issues; Daily hassles); Satisfaction with Life (Overall quality of life issues; Personal issues); Feelings about living with HD (Negative feelings; Positive feelings)."
## [4266] "Factors: Satisfaction with life; Feelings about living with Huntington’s Disease (HD)."
## [4267] "Factors: Satisfaction with life; Feelings about living with Huntington’s Disease (HD)."
## [4268] "Subscales: Pain-avoidance goal; Mood-management goal."
## [4269] "Factors: [Pro-environmental/pro-social] self-identity; [Pro-environmental/pro-social] values; [Pro-environmental/pro-social] engagement; Enthused participation; Social connection; Self-emotional appraisal; Others' emotional appraisal; Utilization of emotions; Regulation of emotions; Pro-environmental behavior; Pro-social behavior (Emotional intelligence)."
## [4270] "Factors: Collaboration; Network exposure; Time pressure; Transcendent experience; Intellectual experience; Creative ideation."
## [4271] "Factors: National identity; EU identity; Global identity; Domestic product preferences; Foreign product preferences; Ethnocentrism."
## [4272] "Factors: Autonomy satisfaction; Autonomy frustration; Competence satisfaction; Competence frustration; Relatedness satisfaction; Relatedness frustration."
## [4273] "Factors: First-order factors (Procrastination (PRO); Attentional Control (AC); Impulse Control (IC); Emotional Control (EC); Goal Orientation (GO); Self-Control Strategies (SCS)); Second-order (Inhibition; Initiation); Third-order self-control factor."
## [4274] "Factors: Focus on Opportunity; Focus on Life; Focus on Time."
## [4275] "Factors: Worry; Cognitive Interference; Tension; Physiological Indicators."
## [4276] "Subscales: Pleasure and VG; Happiness and VG."
## [4277] "Dimensions: Personal competency to prevent pressure injuries; Priority of pressure injury prevention; Impact of pressure injury; Personal responsibility in pressure injury prevention; Confidence in the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention."
## [4278] "Dimensions: Risk Assessment; Risk Awareness; Prevention Intervention; Health Education; Wound Assessment and Treatment."
## [4279] "Subscales: Perceived brand globalness (PBG); Perceived brand localness (PBL); Brand competence; Brand warmth; Consumer brand identification (CBI); Purchase intention; Brand ownership."
## [4280] "Subscales: Physical Activity; Healthful Eating; Mental Health; Barriers to Healthful Eating; Peer Influence."
## [4281] "Subscales: Control; Encouragement; Discouragement."
## [4282] "Subscales: Fear of seizure consequences; Fear of the disease's long-term consequences."
## [4283] "Dimensions: Manageability; Meaningfulness; Comprehensibility."
## [4284] "Subscales: Adaptive Strategies (AS); Suppression (S); Rumination (R)."
## [4285] "Subscales: Subjective feelings; Objective characteristics."
## [4286] "Dimensions: Fertility potential; Partner disclosure; Child’s health; Personal health; Acceptance; Becoming pregnant."
## [4287] "Factors: Unfamiliarity with multi-device use; Complexity of multidevice use; Perceived task fit with multi-device use; Perceived task complexity; Expected satisfaction; Attitude toward multi-device use; Intention to use multiple devices; Perceived information quality."
## [4288] "Subscales: Positive; Negative."
## [4289] "Factors: Leisure-time physical activities; Social engagement; Mentally stimulating activities."
## [4290] "Subscales: Knowledge; General tasks; Communication; Mobility; Self-care; Domestic life; Relationships; Major life areas; Community life; Activities; Participation."
## [4291] "Subscales: Cognitive Burden/Responsibility; Emotional Distress."
## [4292] "Factors: Symptoms; Energy and Postures; Actions and Activities."
## [4293] "Factors: Felt stigma (FS); Stigma concealment (SC)."
## [4294] "Versions: Clinician (AES-C); Informant (AES-I); Self-rated (AES-S)."
## [4295] "Factors: Positively worded (Compassionate); Negatively worded (Uncompassionate);"
## [4296] "Factors: Conflict Behavior; Speeding."
## [4297] "Subscales: Aggressive Driving (CA); Transgressive/Aggressive Driving involving others (CTA); Individual Transgressive Concession (CTI)"
## [4298] "Subscales: Emotional neglect and abuse; Physical neglect and abuse; Sexual abuse; Other traumatic events; Separation experiences; Dysfunctional family situation; Missing or dysfunctional peer group influences."
## [4299] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression. Factors: Psychic anxiety; Depression; Psychomotor agitation."
## [4300] "Factors: General Capacity for Self-Discipline; Deliberate/Nonimpulsive Action; Healthy Habits; Work Ethics; Reliability."
## [4301] "Factors: Consequences Negative; Emotional Representation; Control Positive; Consequences Positive."
## [4302] "Factors: Sleepiness; Alertness."
## [4303] "Subscales: Correct Endorsements; Correct Rejections."
## [4304] "Subscales: Exhaustion (EX); Cynicism (CY); Professional Efficacy (PE or reversed PE [rPE])."
## [4305] "Subscales: Social media technology use; User training; Product Information communication; Diligence; Product knowledge; Adaptability; Customer relationship performance Relative to your competitors."
## [4306] "Subscales: Mitigated killing; Animal cruelty; Murder."
## [4307] "Scales: Client opportunism; Negative affect; Constructive discussion; Passive acceptance; Venting; Disengagement; Client senior management involvement (SMI)."
## [4308] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression."
## [4309] "Factors: Perceived Usefulness; Perceived Ease of Use; Information Quality; Behavioral Intention; Attitude towards Route Diversion; Familiarity with Road Network."
## [4310] "Subscales: Fatigue; Energy."
## [4311] "Factors: Impulsive trait; Hedonic Tendency; Materialism; Impulsive urge; Actual impulsive purchase behavior; Social influence."
## [4312] "Factors: Civil action; Financial action; Physical action; Persuasive action; Sustainable behavior; Proenvironmental behavior; Environmentally friendly behavior."
## [4313] "Domains: Negative emotions/mood; Anxiety; Low energy; Cognition; Sleep disturbance; Self-harm/suicide; Low motivation; Sense of self; Eating behavior."
## [4314] "Factors: Timeline chronic; Timeline cyclical; Consequences positive; Consequences negative; Control positive; Control negative; Emotional representations; Identity."
## [4315] "Subscales: Family support; Friend support; Family rewards and punishment."
## [4316] "Subscales: Environmental practices; Socioeconomic initiatives; Environmental preservation; Local employment."
## [4317] "Subscales: Adaptability (Concern; Confidence; Control; Curiosity); Interest; Knowledge; Maturity; Career choice."
## [4318] "Scales: Hated self; Inadequate self; Reassured self."
## [4319] "Subscales: Relationship Orientation (RO); Employee perceived brand knowledge (BK); Employee perceived brand responsibility (RSP); Employee perceived brand value fit (FIT); Employee-based brand equity (EBE)."
## [4320] "Factors: Forgiveness Climate; Organizational Fairness; Psychological Safety; Service Recovery Performance."
## [4321] "Subscales: Perceived Relevance; Perceived Competence."
## [4322] "Subscales: Somatic; Affective; Cognitive."
## [4323] "Subscales: Systematic reflection in the classroom; Systematic reflection at the school level; Using research in the classroom; Using research at the school level; Conducting research in the classroom; Conducting research at the school level."
## [4324] "Subscales: Awareness; Social image; Value; Service quality; Perceived quality-Leadership; Loyalty; Overall brand equity; Satisfaction; (Postfestival) behavioral intention; Firm-created social media communication; User-created social media communication."
## [4325] "Factors: Self-awareness; Relational transparency; Balanced processing; Internalized moral perspective."
## [4326] "Factors: Theism; Religious/Spiritual Practices; Peer Religiousness."
## [4327] "Factors: Training; Rewards; Management Style; Job satisfaction; Job competence; Job impact; Job autonomy; Service-recovery performance; Job level."
## [4328] "Factors: Brand image; Satisfaction; Brand trust; Brand love, Brand respect; Brand loyalty."
## [4329] "Factors: Conceptual skills; Commitment to the personal growth; Swift trust; Exhibitor team performance."
## [4330] "Factors: Understanding my kidney disease; Taking action to manage my kidney disease; Seeking social support; Adhering to a healthy diet."
## [4331] "Subscales: Person-Job Fit Scale (PJFS); Person-Organization Fit Scale (POFS); Person-Group Fit Scale (PGFS); Person-Supervisor Fit Scale (PSFS). Factors: Values; Goals; Attributes."
## [4332] "Factors: Driving errors; Intentional violations of traffic laws."
## [4333] "Subscales: Co-creation experience with performers (CoCP); Co-creation experience with other festival goers (CoCG); Festival satisfaction (FS); Place identity (PI); Place dependence (PD); Festival re-patronizing intention (FR)."
## [4334] "Subscales: Home Living (HLA); Community and Neighborhood Activities (CNA); School Participation (SPA); School Learning (SLA); Health and Safety (HSA); Social (SA); Advocacy Activities (AA)."
## [4335] "Subscales: General strategies; Problem-solving strategies; Support reading strategies."
## [4336] "Factors: Actual use (ACT); Intentions to book (INT); Overall trust (TRU); Integrity (IGR); Ability (ABT); Benevolence (BEN); Website quality (QUL); Likability (LKB); Lack of Privacy/security (PSC); Natural propensity to trust (NPT); Other’s trust of buyer/seller (TBS); Third party recognition (TPR)."
## [4337] "Subscales: Underemployment; Status Discrepancy; Hours Discrepancy; Involuntary Temporary Work; Field; Poverty Wage Employment."
## [4338] "Subscales: Communication; Lack of Concern Over CINV (Patient); Be a Good Patient; Medication Concerns; Treatment Futility."
## [4339] "Subscales: Distress Relief (DR); Communication Comfort (CC); Rapport (R); Compliance Intent (CI)."
## [4340] "Second-order Factors: Agency/Voice (A/V); Reflexivity (R); Transformation (T). Subscales: Background research (A/V); Data collection (A/V); Analysis and dissemination (A/V); Participatory decision-making (R); Change in power relations (R); Community transformation (T); Partnership capacity (T)."
## [4341] "Subscales: Innovative worker; Loyal worker; Leading workers."
## [4342] "Factors: Value/accessibility of fast pitch; Internal Entrepreneurship; Internal Innovator; Entrepreneurship Experience; Co-curricular Experience; Recognition Motivation; Monetary Motivation; Dependent Care; Outside Employment; Ambition; PhD Ambition; Introversion; Agreeability; Disagreeability"
## [4343] "Factors: Physiological Symptoms; Professor-Student Relationship; Inability and Inferiority; Leisure."
## [4344] "Subscales: Observation of child's condition; Prevention of adverse events; Bowel habit training; Get social support; Access to medical care."
## [4345] "Subscales: Daily life condition of users and the support required by them; Strengthening medical support; Scheduling medical treatment/management or recuperation; Preparing for users' mental and physical changes and preventing the deterioration of the situation."
## [4346] "Factors: Same gender CTC; Different gender CTC."
## [4347] "Subscales: Affective; Behavioral; Cognitive."
## [4348] "Subscales: Awareness of deficits (AD); Social relation (SR); Family relation (FR); Instrumental and basic activities of daily living (ADL); Affective relation (AR)."
## [4349] "Subscales: Activities of daily living (ADL); Cognitive; Affective; Social."
## [4350] "Factors: Long-term memory, cognition, and sensory problems; Verbal communication and comprehension deficits; Somatic symptoms; Emotional difficulties; Impulse control; Executive and planning abilities; Attention."
## [4351] "Subscales: Monitoring; Stakeholder relationships."
## [4352] "Factors: School management; Teacher-teacher relationship; Learning-goal structure; Performance-goal structure; Teacher-student relationship; Student-student relationship; Parent involvement."
## [4353] "Factors: Activity expectations; Activity self-efficacy."
## [4354] "Subscales: Intrinsic, contribution, and self-fulfillment; Acquisition and growth; Security and salary; Maintenance of activity levels."
## [4355] "Subscales: Efficient classroom management; Safe and stimulating learning climate; Clear instruction; Adaptation of teaching; Teaching–learning strategies."
## [4356] "Factors: Social problems; Cognitive and emotional symptoms."
## [4357] "Major themes: dynamics of the experience, relating to how the writer experienced his/her characters; how the characters’ voices related to the writer’s own inner speech; how dialogue with characters was experienced; characters exhibiting agency."
## [4358] "Factors: Word recognition; Comprehension."
## [4359] "Factors: Emotional Support; Information Support; Social Presence of Others; Social Presence of Interaction with Sellers; Social presence of web; Trust in Social Commerce."
## [4360] "Factors: Competence; Autonomy; Autonomous motivation (Intrinsic motivation; Identified regulation); Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Attitude; Recommendation intention; Satisfaction; Organizational attractiveness."
## [4361] "Factors: Service Quality; Perception of the Team’s Financial Status; Attitude Toward Sponsor; Service Quality Valence; Brand Awareness; Previous Experience With Sponsor; Perceived Fit; Brand Image; Behavior Intentions; Brand Identification."
## [4362] "Subscales: Current services used; Service satisfaction; Future service utilization; Future perceived service needs."
## [4363] "Subscales: Enjoyment of nature; Empathy for nature; Responsibility toward nature; Awareness of nature."
## [4364] "Factors: Susceptibility to Peer Influence Normative; Informative; Susceptibility to Social Media Influence Normative; Informative; Attitude toward Social Media Platforms (SMPs) Advertising; SMP Advertising Avoidance Cognitive ad avoidance; Affective ad avoidance; Behavioral ad avoidance."
## [4365] "Subscales: Teacher mastery of ICT tools used to teach L1 writing; Teacher use of ICT tools to teach L1 writing; L1 teachers' use of ICT tools to evaluate L1 writing; L1 teachers’ attitudes toward using ICT tools to teach L1 writing."
## [4366] "Subscales: Authoritative (Warmth & Support; Autonomy granting; Regulation); Authoritarian (Non-Reasoning/Punitive; Physical Coercion; Verbal Hostility); Permissive (Indulgence)."
## [4367] "Subscales: Active/elated; Risk-taking/irritable."
## [4368] "Factors: Marketing exploration; Marketing ambidexterity; Absorptive capacity; Sales growth (T/Q); Market volatility; Market competitiveness."
## [4369] "Subscales: Constant observations; Care planning; PRN with consent; Active distractions; Refuse medical care; Forced IM medication; Therapeutic Interventions; Inappropriate medical care; Remain present during cutting; Seclusion; Informing other staff; Providing sterile razors; Intermittent observations; Physical restraint; Give wound advice; Passive distraction; Provide first aid kit."
## [4370] "Subscales: Orientation; Copying; Semantic knowledge; Calculation; Verbal fluency; Similarities; Naming; Visuospatial 1; Visuospatial 2; Anterograde; Executive (help)."
## [4371] "Factors: Positive rating with comments (PRwC); Negative rating with comments (NRwC); Negative/neutral rating without comments (N/NRwoC)."
## [4372] "Factors: Genuine egoistic behaviors; Taking credit; Exerting pressure; Manipulative leader behavior; Undermining development."
## [4373] "Factors: Generalized anxiety; Separation anxiety; Social anxiety; Panic; Specific anxiety."
## [4374] "Factors: Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS); Behavioral inhibition system (BIS); Reward Interest (RI); Goal-Drive Persistence (GDP); Reward Reactivity (RR); Impulsivity (IMP) (Behavioral Approach System [BAS] Scale)."
## [4375] "Factors: Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS); Behavioral inhibition system (BIS); Reward Interest (RI); Goal-Drive Persistence (GDP); Reward Reactivity (RR); Impulsivity (IMP) (Behavioral Approach System [BAS] Scale)."
## [4376] "Dimensions: Cognitive fusion (CF); Experiential avoidance (EA)."
## [4377] "Factors: Cognitive deficits; Somatic complaints; Emotional complaints."
## [4378] "Factors: Relationship locus of control; Perspective taking; Intimacy avoidance; Emotion regulation; Romantic appeal; Conflict resolution skills; Temperament."
## [4379] "Factors: Behavior (Pre-commitment; Honesty and control); Beliefs (Personal responsibility; Gambling literacy)."
## [4380] "Factors: Positive play behaviors (Honesty and control (HC); Pre-commitment (PC); Positive play beliefs (Personal responsibility (PR); Gambling literacy (GL)."
## [4381] "Factors: Negative Suicide Ideation; Positive Suicide Ideation"
## [4382] "Subscales: Psychosocial support; Career-related action."
## [4383] "Factors: Turnover intentions; Job stress; Coworker support; Political ineptness; Despotic leadership."
## [4384] "Factors: Job control; Job demand; Employee and management engagement; Supervisor support; Colleague support."
## [4385] "Subscales: Accurately completed; Partially completed; Omitted; Rule breaks; Passes; Inefficiencies."
## [4386] "Subscales: Total time; Number of locations visited; Number of tasks completed; Total rule breaks; Performance efficiency."
## [4387] "Factors: Managing the Pain; Enduring the Pain."
## [4388] "Factors: Being in the Moment with the Child; Mindful Discipline."
## [4389] "Subscales: Voice; Loyalty; Exit; Neglect."
## [4390] "Subscales: Emotional control effort in profession; Patient‐focused emotional suppression; Emotional pretense by norms."
## [4391] "Domains: Healthy Relationships; Healthy Relationships; Puberty and Adolescence; STI’s and HIV; Pregnancy and Reproduction; Anatomy and Physiology; Identity."
## [4392] "Factors: Mindful discipline; Being in the moment with the child"
## [4393] "Factors: Meaning; Reactions of Others; Counterfactuals; Injustice; Reactions."
## [4394] "Factors: Personalized Stigma (PS); Negative Self-Image (NSI); Concern with Public Attitudes (PA); Disclosure Concerns (DC)."
## [4395] "Subscales: Recognition of sponsored content (REC); Understanding of selling and persuasive intent (INTENT); Recognition of the commercial source of sponsored content (SOURCE); Understanding of persuasive tactics (TACTIC); Understanding of the economic model (ECO); Self-reflective awareness of the effectiveness of sponsored content (SELF); Skepticism toward sponsored content (SKEP); Appropriateness of sponsored content (APPR); Liking of sponsored content (LIKE). Factors: Self; Other."
## [4396] "Factors: Associational solidarity (As); Affection solidarity (Af); Functional solidarity (Fu)."
## [4397] "Factors: Physician–Patient Relationship; Convenient and Fair Process; Service Reliability."
## [4398] "Factors: Staff actions; Patient actions."
## [4399] "Factors: Behavioral intention; Attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Conformity tendency; Traffic environment."
## [4400] "Subscales: Anxiety & Fear; Suspicion."
## [4401] "Factors: Indoor type activities; Outdoor type activities."
## [4402] "Subscales: Work support; Personal support; Risk support."
## [4403] "Subscales: Self-care and physical activity; Sex life; Public distresses; Self-perception."
## [4404] "Subscales: Social activities; Grooming and weighing; Clothing; Eating restraint."
## [4405] "Factors: Dissatisfaction/preoccupation with body image (D/P); Body image avoidance behaviors (AV)."
## [4406] "Constructs: Perceived intrusiveness; Attitudinal persuasion knowledge; Attitude toward the advertisement; Job-pursuit intention; Privacy concerns; Advertisement realism; Employer familiarity."
## [4407] "Factors: Job insecurity; Changes to core tasks; Adaptive performance."
## [4408] "Factors: Emotional bond with the group; Problem update and catharsis; Interpersonal learning; Goals and tasks."
## [4409] "Subscales: Self-efficacy; Institutional support for patient-centered care; Complementary and alternative medicine attitudes; Preparedness to discuss nonpharmacy approaches for treating; Whole health practices; Whole health practice behavior."
## [4410] "Subscales: Self-awareness (SA); Balanced processing (BP); Internalized moral perspective (IMP); Relational transparency (RT)."
## [4411] "Factors: Thoughts & Emotions; Lack of Control."
## [4412] "Factors: Emotional awareness; Emotional regulation; Social awareness; Emotional self-control; Emotional creativity."
## [4413] "Subscales: Work; Close People; Own health; Close person's health; Finances. Factors: Positive; Negative."
## [4414] "Subscales: Knowledge of breastfeeding; Attitudes towards breastfeeding; Knowledge of schizophrenia; Attitudes towards women with schizophrenia; Attitudes towards breastfeeding among women with schizophrenia."
## [4415] "Subscales: Seeking positive affect-inducing activities; Seeking support; Healthcare use behavior."
## [4416] "Factors: \"I am\" (Identity; Satisfaction); \"I Have\" (Bonds; Network; Internal Strength); \"I Can\" (Self-efficacy; Affectivity/Reciprocity."
## [4417] "Subscales: Japan Product; Japan Affairs; Intercultural; Approach."
## [4418] "Subscales: Perceptions of research in profession; Cognitive attitude towards research; Affective attitude towards research (positive); Affective attitude towards research (negative); Self-efficacy towards research; Importance of research"
## [4419] "Subscales: Compensation; Meaning Negotiation; Misinterpretation."
## [4420] "Subscales: Positive implicit affect (PA); Negative implicit affect (NA)."
## [4421] "Subscales: Health and Medicines Advice (HMA); Relationship Quality (REL); Environmental Quality (ENV); Technical Quality (TQ); Non-Prescription Service (NPS); Health Outcome (HO)."
## [4422] "Subscales: Metacognitive self-regulation; Growth mindset; Intrinsic motivation; Academic perseverance; Empathy; Relationship skills; Emotional regulation; Self-control."
## [4423] "Factors: Dynamic capabilities; Cocreation capabilities; Service provision capabilities; Performance. Subfactors: Sensing capability; Seizing capability; Reconfiguring capability; Relational interaction capability; Empowered interaction capability; Ethical interaction capability; Individuated interaction capability; Concerted interaction capability; Developmental interaction capability; Brand management advisory capability; Creative advisory capability (originality); Creative advisory capability (relevance); Customer relationship advisory capability; Market research advisory capability; Customer-based performance; Financial performance."
## [4424] "Sections: Over-reactivity; Under-reactivity."
## [4425] "Factors: Product quality; Sales service quality; Technical repair service support; Complaint handling service; Trust in the supplier; Customer loyalty."
## [4426] "Factors: Interaction; Benevolence; Relationship value; Loyalty; Willingness-to-pay premium price; Relationship quality. Subfactors: Trust; Competence; Perceived relationship orientation."
## [4427] "Factors: Product innovation; Importer feedback; Importer Integration in product development; Interfunctional coordination; Competitive intensity; Technological turbulence."
## [4428] "Factors: Product innovation intensity; Product innovativeness novelty; Market responsiveness; Human resource capacity; Dysfunctional competition; Export market competitive intensity; Perceptual export performance."
## [4429] "Factors: Transaction-specific investment; Out-of-the-channel-loop perception; Partner's achievement orientation; Partner's opportunistic behavioral intention; Partner's extra-role behavioral intention; Market uncertainty."
## [4430] "Factors: Direct offline; Indirect offline; Direct online; Indirect online."
## [4431] "Constructs: E-commerce resources; E-commerce marketing capabilities; Distribution efficiency; Communication efficiency; Export venture e-commerce performance; Export venture sales."
## [4432] "Factors: Relationship value; Core offering; Customer responsiveness; Market sensing; Customer relationship management; Relational governance; Contractual governance; Psychic distance; Environmental munificence."
## [4433] "Factors: Customer collaboration; Supplier Collaboration; Exploratory learning; Knowledge tacitness; Cross-functional collaboration; Service meaningfulness; Service novelty."
## [4434] "Subscales: Affect; Probability; Consequences."
## [4435] "Factors: Coercive power; Non-coercive power; Distance; Opportunism; Uncertainty; Infidelity."
## [4436] "Factors: Conservativeness in the cheating accusation; Justification of cheating; Perceived immorality of cheating students."
## [4437] "Factors: Family; Friends; School; Environment."
## [4438] "Factors: Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Psychopathy"
## [4439] "Factors: Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Psychopathy"
## [4440] "Subscales: Physical assault; Psychological aggression; Sexual coercion; Injuries; Negotiation."
## [4441] "Subscales: MILM-Experience (MILM-E); MILM-Reflectivity (MILM-R)."
## [4442] "Factors: Desire for Change and Innovation; Product Presentation; Product Performance Uncertainty; Web Shopping Convenience; Consumer Confidence; Shopping Enjoyment; Price Consciousness; Product Selection Support; Interest in Product Combinations; Product Search; Variety Seeking."
## [4443] "Domains: Respects the rights of patients to inspect their medical records; Conducts structural consultation with support personnel; Has perceptions about how to repeat prescriptions can be written in a responsible manner; Is able to let a mild disorder run its course even though the correct diagnosis is a mystery."
## [4444] "Factors: Attitudes toward the Science of PrEP; Perception of Sexual Health Risks of PrEP; Perception of Dangerous Effects of PrEP."
## [4445] "Domains: Safe and stimulating learning climate; Efficient organization; Clear and structured instructions; Intensive and activating teaching; Adjusting instructions and learner processing to inter-learner differences; Learner engagement; Beyond the basic standards of teaching; Basic teaching skills; Activating students; Di!erentiating teaching; Teaching learning strategies; Almost perfect; Perfect."
## [4446] "Factors: Self-care and emotional maturity; Cognitive and communication; Social competence; Learning dispositions; Classroom rules"
## [4447] "Factors: External; Introjected; Identified; Intrinsic."
## [4448] "Factors: Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Ambivalence; Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Quality; Leader ambivalence; Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) certainty"
## [4449] "Factors: Physical health; Food enjoyment; Security; Environmental comfort; Autonomy; Meaningful activity; Interrelationship; Family relationships; Mood."
## [4450] "Subscales: Management commitment (MC); Management priority (MP); Organization communication (OC); Organizational participation (OP)"
## [4451] "Subscales: Leader safety commitment; Safety communication; Safety training; Coworker safety practices; Safety equipment and housekeeping; Safety involvement; Safety rewards."
## [4452] "Factors (Subscales): Pre-Burnout (Fatigue, Disturbed Breaks, Disturbed Leisure Time); Resources (General Well-Being, Sleep Quality, Being in Shape); Burnout (General Stress, Social Stress, Amotivation)."
## [4453] "Factors: Withdrawal symptom worry; Relapse worry."
## [4454] "Factors: Civic skills; Civic orientation; Local civic acts; General civic acts"
## [4455] "Factors: Emotional exhaustion (EE); Depersonalization (D); Personal accomplishment (PA)."
## [4456] "Factors: Resilience; Adaptability; Flexibility; Decision-Making."
## [4457] "Subscales: Inner awareness; Outer awareness; Acting with awareness; Acceptance; Decentering/nonreactivity; Openness; Relativity; Insight."
## [4458] "Subscales: Inner awareness; Outer awareness; Acting with awareness; Acceptance; Decentering/nonreactivity; Openness; Relativity; Insight."
## [4459] "Subscales: Stereotype endorsement; Social withdrawal; Alienation; Discrimination experience; Stigma resistance."
## [4460] "Factors: Social support (SS); Self-efficacy (SE); Skills (SK); Goal setting (GS)."
## [4461] "Subscales: Life style liberty; Economic liberty."
## [4462] "Factors: Economic/Government Liberty; Lifestyle Liberty."
## [4463] "Subscales: Care; Fairness; Loyalty; Authority; Sanctity"
## [4464] "Scales: Reflective Dialogue; Socialization of New Teachers; Teacher Collaboration; Data Use; Collective Responsibility; Innovation; School Commitment; Teacher Safety; Teacher–Principal/Director Trust; Teacher–Teacher Trust; Teacher–Parent Trust; Parent Involvement; Teacher Outreach/Collaboration With Parents; Parent Influence; Instructional Leadership; Teacher Influence; Program Coherence; Quality of Student Interaction; Positive Learning Climate; Child–Child Interactions; Early Mathematics Development; Early Language and Literacy; Early Cognitive Development; Early Social-Emotional Development; Support for Kindergarten Transition; Principal/Director–Parent Relationships; Program Orientation Towards Early Education; Staff Care of Parent as Person; Including Parents as Partners; Teacher Communication With Parents; Teachers’ Interactions With Children; Parent Influence on the Program; Social-Capital Building of Parents. Factors:"
## [4465] "Subscales: Aggressive/hostile behaviors; Exaggerated safety/caution behaviors; Anxiety-based performance deficit."
## [4466] "Factors: Diabetes self-Management Skill; (Medical) Insulin Management Competence; (General) Self-Assertiveness; Autonomous Self-Regulation."
## [4467] "Subscales: Available resources; Intrinsic load; External load: organization and social ambiance at work; External load: temporal aspects of work; Germane load."
## [4468] "Subscales: Symptom Burden; Function; Health Behaviors; Healthcare-Seeking Skills; Economic Strain."
## [4469] "Subscales: Cognitive Centrality; In-Group Affect; In-Group Ties."
## [4470] "Factors: Communication; Leader Support; Justice at Work; Colleagues Support; Paper Clarity; Skills Alignment; Challenges; Growth perspective."
## [4471] "Subscales: Patient-centered care; Treatment effectiveness; Staff behavior; Availability and coordination of care; Communication."
## [4472] "Subscales: Verbal Sexual Communication; Non-Verbal Sexual Communication. Factors: Nonverbal Sexual Initiation and Pleasure; Nonverbal Sexual Refusal."
## [4473] "Subscales: Verbal Sexual Communication; Non-Verbal Sexual Communication. Factors: Nonverbal Sexual Initiation and Pleasure; Nonverbal Sexual Refusal."
## [4474] "Factors: Inadequate Attention/Affection; Jealousy/Infidelity; Chores/Responsibilities; Sex; Control/Dominance; and Future Plans/Money."
## [4475] "Factors: Healthcare Climate Supporting Competence and Relatedness; Healthcare Climate Supporting Autonomy."
## [4476] "Factors: Readiness for Change; Planfulness; Using Resources; Intentional Behavior."
## [4477] "Factors: Autonomy in organizing work; Decision-making autonomy; Autonomy when using working methods; Diversity of tasks; The importance of work tasks; Identity of work tasks; Feedback from the job position; Complexity of work; Information processing; Problem solving; Diversity of skills; Specialization; Social support; Initiated interconnection of work; Acquired coherence of work; Cooperation outside the organization; Feedback from others; Ergonomics; Physical demands; Working conditions; Equipment used."
## [4478] "Factors: Avoidance of Negative Affectivity; Escape from Social and/or Evaluative situations; Pursuit of Attention; Pursuit of Tangible Reinforcement."
## [4479] "Components: Family; Self; School; Compared Self; No violence; Self-efficacy; Friendship."
## [4480] "Factors: Executive; Initiation; Emotion."
## [4481] "Factors: Executive Apathy; Emotional Apathy; Initiation Apathy."
## [4482] "Subscales: Skills; Psychology Value; Course Behaviors; Student Learning Outcomes; Attitudes."
## [4483] "Subscales: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [4484] "Factors: Deliberative endangerment (DE); Unfocused driving (UD); Speed (SP); Risky exposure (RE); Smartphone distraction (SMP)."
## [4485] "Subscales: Transient violations; Fixed violations; Misjudgement; Risky exposure; Driver mood."
## [4486] "Subscales: Excitement; Sincerity; Competence; Sophistication; Ruggedness."
## [4487] "Subscales: Team Structure; Leadership; Situation Monitoring; Mutual Support; Communication."
## [4488] "Subscales: Centrality; Private Regard; Public Regard; Out-Group Regard; Prosocial Motivation; Personal Motivation; Moral Motivation; Strictness."
## [4489] "Subscales: Competency 1; Competency 2; Competency 3; Competency 4; Competency 5; Competency 6; Competency 7; Competency 8; Competency 9."
## [4490] "Subscales: Barriers to the implementation of SQC; Benefits of SQC; Employee and company attitudes;"
## [4491] "Factors: Skills and resources; Awareness and sensitivity."
## [4492] "Factors: Self-acceptance; Self-knowledge; Relationship quality; Consideration of others."
## [4493] "Subscales: Time scarcity; Material scarcity; Psychological resources scarcity"
## [4494] "Subscales: Team structure; Leadership; Situation monitoring; Mutual support; Communication."
## [4495] "Factors: Challenge; Hindrance."
## [4496] "Factors: Positive metacognitions about somatic hypervigilance (P-MASH); Negative metacognitions about the uncontrollability and physical repercussions of cognitive and attentional processes (N-MUR)"
## [4497] "Factors: Spiritual belief; Centricity of God; Altruism; Spiritual conduct; Purposefulness of life."
## [4498] "Constructs: SNS continuance usage; SNS continuance intention; Lack of awareness; Uncontrollability; Mental efficiency; User satisfaction; Trust in an SNS provider; Prior SNS use; Relationship management; Self-presentation; Perceived enjoyment; Perceived security; Perceived Risk."
## [4499] "Factors: Reading Attitudes and Interests; Reading Purposes; Reading Ability; Higer-Order Literacy; Sophistication of Reading Materials; Transformational Reading."
## [4500] "Subscales: Knowledge about healthy products; Knowledge about unhealthy products; Dietary/nutrition knowledge; Healthy eating habits; Unhealthy eating habits; Dietary/Eating habits."
## [4501] "Factors: Interpersonal dependence; Emotional outburst; Distress internalizing."
## [4502] "Subscales: Social inclusion; Self-determination; Emotional wellbeing; Physical wellbeing; Material wellbeing; Rights; Personal development; Interpersonal relationships."
## [4503] "Factors: Social Development; Social Demonstration Approach; Social Demonstration Avoid Goals."
## [4504] "Subscales: Perceived Self-Knowledge; Others' Knowledge; Perceived Specific Knowledge; Actual Specific Knowledge."
## [4505] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitude; Self-efficacy; Reinforcing factors; Enabling factors; Behavior."
## [4506] "Subscales: Sense of Purpose; Purposeful Personal Expressiveness; Effortful Engagement."
## [4507] "Subscales: Health; Relationship; Identity; Challenge."
## [4508] "Subscales: Device; Service."
## [4509] "Subscales: B&H woman; B&H man; Social success; Pro-health behaviors; Anti-health behaviors."
## [4510] "Scales: Satisfaction; Performance. Themes: “Likes” about the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; Effects on practice; Utility; Future use."
## [4511] "Subscales: Activity; Autonomy; Belonging and friends; Hope; Self-perception; Well-being; Physical health."
## [4512] "Factors: Special event experience; Memory of event experience; Satisfaction of event experience; Purchase intention of room nights. Subscales: Esthetics; Entertainment; Escapism; Memory of the special event; Satisfaction of the event; Purchase intention of special event package with room nights in it."
## [4513] "Factors: Transition preparation; Transition support."
## [4514] "Subscales: Physical environment; Atmosphere; Ancillary events; Competition; Event novelty; Site accessibility; Site maintenance; Event organization; Self-service technology."
## [4515] "Factors: Place identity (PI); Place dependence (PD); Social bonding (SB)."
## [4516] "Factors: Behavioral self-blame (BSB) attributions; Characterological self-blame (CSB) attributions."
## [4517] "Factors: Motivations (Perceived teaching abilities; Intrinsic value; Job security; Time for family; Shape future of children/adolescents; Enhance social equity; Make social contribution; Work with children/adolescents; Fallback career; Prior teaching and learning experiences; Social influences); Perceptions (High demand; Expert career; Social status; Salary; Social discussion)."
## [4518] "Subscales: Frequency that the child used rotation; Finger-to-palm translation; Palm-to-finger translation."
## [4519] "Subscales: Comprehensibility; Listening; Openness; Feedback; Empathy; Nonverbal; Paralanguage; Manner."
## [4520] "Subscales: Hedonic values; Egoistic values; Altruistic values; Biospheric values."
## [4521] "Factors: Content nativeness; Design nativeness"
## [4522] "Factors: Ability; Benevolence; Integrity; Willingness to accept vulnerability (W2AV)."
## [4523] "Factors: Emotional burden; Family and friends distress; Regimen-specific distress."
## [4524] "Subscales: Electricity saving; Waste reduction; Pro-social action; Local support."
## [4525] "Factors: Behavioral intention (BI); Attitude (AT); Subjective norms (SN); Perceived behavioral control (PBC); Self-reported lane change violation behavior at intersections (LCV)."
## [4526] "Domains: Awareness of the guidelines; Knowledge of the guidelines; Perceived disease susceptibility; Perceived disease severity; Perceived behavioral control."
## [4527] "Factors: Personal regimen-specific distress; Child regimen-specific distress; Keeping up with chronic demands; Negative Emotions."
## [4528] "Factors: Emotional burden; Regimen-specific distress."
## [4529] "Factors: Negative emotions; Keeping up with chronic demands; Personal regimen-specific distress; Child regimen-specific distress."
## [4530] "Subscales: Purpose in life; Self-esteem; Life satisfaction; Cognitive Flexibility; Proactive coping; Social support."
## [4531] "Factors: Coping motives; Enhancement motives; Social motives; Conformity motives; Expansion motives."
## [4532] "Factors: Focus of assessment (Learning; Accountability; Certifying; Teaching); Control purpose (Formative regulation (FR); Societal control (SC)); Focus *control interaction (Learning-FR; Teaching-FR; Accountability-FR; Certifying-FR; Accountability-SC; Certifying-SC; Learning-SC; Teaching-SC)."
## [4533] "Factors: Professor's work; Pedagogical issues; Usability."
## [4534] "Constructs: Social influence; Learning relevance; Self-efficacy; Anxiety; Playfulness; Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Voluntariness; External facilitating conditions; Use behavior."
## [4535] "Subscales: Considered torture; Effective; Justified."
## [4536] "Subscales: Somatic; Schneiderian; Secondary features of dissociative identity disorder; Borderline personality disorder criteria; Extrasensory perception/paranormal; Suicide attempts; Conversion; Number of dissociative disorders; Trauma score."
## [4537] "Factors: Quality (Positive Bonding; Positive Working; Negative Relationship); Structure (Member-member; Member-leader; Member-group)."
## [4538] "Factors: Hedonic needs; Symbolic needs; Self-esteem needs; Recognition needs; (Korean luxury cosmetic) brand involvement; Informational herd behavior; Normative herd behavior."
## [4539] "Subscales (Factors): Preparation (Course; Resource); Process (Debrief; Clinical Ability); Outcome (Confidence; Problem Solving & Collaboration)."
## [4540] "Factors: Information Sensitivity; Privacy Control; Privacy Risk; Social Privacy Concerns; Institutional Privacy Concerns; Efficiency Benefit; Social Benefit; Enjoyment Benefit; Engagement; Social Desirability Bias."
## [4541] "Factors: Technological insecurity; Organizational support for strengths use; Friendship opportunities; General Health."
## [4542] "Factors: SZS Intentional; SZS Behavioral."
## [4543] "Factors: Negation of Intimacy; Passion; Commitment."
## [4544] "Factors: Recognition needs; Information needs; Social needs; Entertainment needs; Salience; Tolerance; Mood modification; Relapse; Withdrawal; Conflict; Instagram addiction; Psychological well-being; Shyness; Loneliness; Life satisfaction."
## [4545] "Subscales: Antisocial; Avoidant; Borderline; Compulsive; Dependent; Depressive; Histrionic; Narcissistic; Negativistic; Paranoid; Sadistic; Schizoid; Schizotypal."
## [4546] "Subscales: Risk taking; Innovativeness; Proactivity; Perseverance; Passion."
## [4547] "Subscales: Non-Arousal; Partnered-Arousal; Solitary-Arousal."
## [4548] "Factors: Social media analytics technology–related deployment; Marketing and Information technology integration; Social media analytics skills; Technological opportunism; Firm performance."
## [4549] "Factors: Organizational Ambidexterity; Organizational Context; Interorganizational Relations; Structural Differentiation; Performance."
## [4550] "Scales: Entrepreneurial intentions; Personal attitudes; Subjective norms; Entrepreneurial skills; Entrepreneurial behavior"
## [4551] "Subscales: (Eighth-grade level suggested) Technique; Intonation; Expressiveness/tone quality; Rhythm; (Seventh-grade level suggested) Rhythm/technique; Tone quality/intonation; Expressiveness/tone quality."
## [4552] "Subscales: Comfort and confidence with RtI; School-wide changes and beliefs; School psychologist self-efficacy; Preparedness of others."
## [4553] "Factors: Listening with Full Attention; Compassion and Acceptance; Self-Regulation in Parenting; Emotional Awareness of Child."
## [4554] "Domains: Physical sexual function; Sexual and relationship concerns; Sexual desire and sexual self-esteem."
## [4555] "Subscales: Emotional Awareness; Present-Centered Attention; Low-reactivity; Non-judge."
## [4556] "Factors: Compassion for Child (7 items); Emotional Awareness in Parenting (6 items); Nonjudgmental Acceptance in Parenting (6 items); Listening with Full Awareness (4 items)."
## [4557] "Subscales: Compassion for child; Non-judgmental acceptance; Self-regulation in parenting; Listening with full attention; Emotional awareness of child."
## [4558] "Factors: Listening with Full Attention; Compassion for the Child; Non-judgmental Acceptance of Parental Functioning; Emotional Non-reactivity in Parenting; Emotional Awareness of the Child; Emotional Awareness of Self."
## [4559] "Subscales: Nonjudgmental acceptance of parental functioning (NONJUDG); Emotional self-regulation (EMO); Compassion for child (COMP); Listening with full attention (LISTEN); Noticing child’s feelings (NOTICE); Insight into effect of mood (INSIGHT)."
## [4560] "Subscales: Geometry; Numeracy."
## [4561] "Subscales: Stereotype awareness (aware); Stereotype agreement (agree); Self-concurrence (apply); Self-esteem decrement (harm)."
## [4562] "Subscales: Awareness of public stereotypes; Stereotype agreement; Stereotype self-occurrence; Drug-related shame."
## [4563] "Factors: Aggressive violations; Ordinary violations; Errors; Lapses"
## [4564] "Subscales: Assessment; Professional foundations; Planning and preparation; Educational method and strategies; Evaluation."
## [4565] "Subscales: Understanding; Support; Expectation."
## [4566] "Factors: Disease symptoms; Side-effects of treatment; Body image; Future perspective."
## [4567] "Factors: Disease Symptoms (DS); Side Effects of Treatment (SE); Future Perspective (FP); Body Image (BI)."
## [4568] "Factors: Self-acceptance; Self-development."
## [4569] "Factors: Lack of concentration; Lack of pro-social attitudes."
## [4570] "Factors: Trust in supervisor; Top management reliability; Outgroup attitudes."
## [4571] "Subscales: Social awareness; Social cognition; Social communication; Social motivation; Restricted interests and repetitive behavior."
## [4572] "Subscales: Physical well-being (PWB); Social/family well-being (SWB); Emotional well-being (EWB); Functional well-being (FWB); Fatigue."
## [4573] "Subscales: Perceived cognitive impairments (CogPCI); Comments from others (CogOth); Perceived cognitive abilities (CogPCA); Impact of perceived cognitive impairments on QOL (CogQOL)."
## [4574] "Factors: Authentic leadership; Job crafting; Customer-oriented OCB; Service recovery performance; Human resource flexibility."
## [4575] "Factors: Sales Team Intragroup Conflict; Learning Orientation; Performance Orientation; Procedural Justice; Distributive Justice; Job Satisfaction; Intent to Turnover; Company Tenure; Sales Efficacy."
## [4576] "Factors: Effective use of method selected and continuity of contraceptive use and care; Method selection; Respectful care."
## [4577] "Factors: International Joint Venture Knowledge co-creation; Partner complementarity; Partner compatibility; International Joint Venture Performance; Information verifiability; Chinese asset specificity; Foreign asset specificity."
## [4578] "Factors: Network governance; Consumer demand uncertainty; Unilateral governance; Retailer's power."
## [4579] "Factors: Social-information processing capability; Information acquirement; Information communication; Information responsiveness; Customer co-creation; Social media agility; Internal social media agility; External social media agility; Strength of customer-firm relationships; Levels of social media use."
## [4580] "Dimensions: Characterological self-blame; Behavioral self-blame."
## [4581] "Subscales: Relational behavior; Authoritarian behavior; Competitive behavior."
## [4582] "Subscales: Necessity; Concerns; Practical barriers."
## [4583] "Factors: Asset specificity; Opportunism; Administrative control; Transactional uncertainty; Trust; Information exchange; Flexibility; Dependence."
## [4584] "Factors: Perceived learning effect; Expected outcome; Intention; Entertainment; Engagement; Competition"
## [4585] "Factors: Disinhibition; External Cues; Awareness; Emotional Response; Distraction.; Self-regulation; Awareness."
## [4586] "Factors: To draw attention to the others; Need to have fun and relax; Hookah smoking in the family; Availability; Curiosity; Having a positive attitude towards hookah."
## [4587] "Factors: Acute anxiety and adjustment; Social anxiety, specific fears and trauma; Perfectionism and control; General anxiety."
## [4588] "Domains: Chinese; Macau; Hong Kong; Western."
## [4589] "Factors: Absenteeism; Presenteeism; Productivity costs."
## [4590] "Modules: Absenteeism; Presenteeism; Loss of unpaid work."
## [4591] "Factors: Addiction; Engagement."
## [4592] "Factors: Behavioral intention; Subjective norms; Perceived control; Attitudes toward behavior."
## [4593] "Factors: Individuality supported through specific nursing interventions (ICS-A); Patient perceptions of individuality in their own care during hospitalization (ICS-B). ICS-A Subscales: Clinical situation A; Personal life situation A; Decisional control over care-related decisions A. ICS-B Subscales: Clinical situation B; Personal life situation B; Decisional control over care-related decisions B."
## [4594] "Factors: Self-confidence; Need for success; Personal benefit and leadership; Responsibility."
## [4595] "Factors: Job Performance; Informed Action; Transparent Interaction; Representational Fidelity."
## [4596] "Factors: High arousal negative; Low arousal negative; General positive."
## [4597] "Factors: Facial expression; Upper limb; Compliance with ventilation."
## [4598] "Sections: Facial expression; Upper limb movement; Compliance with ventilation."
## [4599] "Factors : Child impact (Symptom; Function; Psychology; Self-image); Family impact (Parental distress; Family function)."
## [4600] "Sections: Face; Activity (movement); Guarding; Physiological (vital signs); Respiratory."
## [4601] "Sections: Facial expressions; Body movements; Muscle tension; Compliance with the ventilator for intubated patients or vocalization for extubated patients."
## [4602] "Factors: Intelligence; Personality; Cognition; Behavior; Feeling; Emotion."
## [4603] "Factors: Computer Engagement; Computer Addiction; Computer Comfort."
## [4604] "Subscales: Similarity; Vividness; Positive affect/Positivity."
## [4605] "Subscales: Interference with life; Somato-sensory retreat."
## [4606] "Dimensions: Active and constructive coping; Cognitive coping and refocus on planning; Positive reappraisal; Rumination and preoccupation; Emotional regulation; Self-soothing and the ability to manage negative emotions; Perseveration of negative emotion; Proneness to responding with anger; Emotional awareness; Denial and cognitive avoidance; Behavioral (dis)engagement and catastrophizing."
## [4607] "Factors: Stigma; Normalization/glorification; Isolation/depression."
## [4608] "Factors: Glorification; Isolation; Stigma."
## [4609] "Factors: Animal meat (MEAT); Poor hygiene (HYG); Human contamination (HUCON); Mold (MOLD); Decaying fruit (FRUIT); Fish (FISH); Decaying vegetables (VEGI); Living contaminants (LCON)."
## [4610] "Domains: Signs and symptoms; Causes or the nature of suicide; Risk factors; Treatment and prevention."
## [4611] "Factors: Sleep dissatisfaction and impairments; Sleep onset; Sleep maintenance."
## [4612] "Factors: Active Coping (Exercise; Relaxation; Cognitive Control; Pacing; Assertive Communication; Proper Body Mechanics); Perseverance (Task Persistence; Avoid Pain-Contingent Rest; Avoid Asking for Assistance)."
## [4613] "General Factor: Work‑Study Congruence. Factors: Family; Leisure; Occupation; University demands and resources"
## [4614] "Subscales: Quantitative demands; Work pace; Emotional demands; Demands to conceal feelings; Cognitive demands; Work without boundaries; Influence at work; Influence on working hours; Possibilities for development; Role clarity; Role conflicts; Predictability; Possibilities for performing work tasks; Unnecessary work tasks; Social support from colleagues; Cooperation between colleagues within teams, departments, or groups; Trust between colleagues; Social support from management; Quality of leadership; Cooperation with immediate supervisor; Justice in the workplace; Involvement of employees; Changes in the workplace; Experience of meaning at work; Commitment to the workplace; Work engagement; Job insecurity; Conflict between work-life and private life."
## [4615] "Factors: Observing; Describing; Nonjudging of inner experience; Acting with awareness; Nonreactivity to inner experience."
## [4616] "Subscales: Identity problems; Self-direction problems; Empathy problems; Intimacy problems."
## [4617] "Factors: Perceived Obstacles; Negative Emotions."
## [4618] "Factors: Effectiveness of MALL; Teacher influence; Degree of exhibition to MALL; Surplus value of MALL; Orientation towards MALL."
## [4619] "Factors: Effectiveness of CALL vs. non-CALL; Surplus value of CALL; Teacher influence; Degree of exhibition to CALL."
## [4620] "Subscales: Leadership; Justification; Culture/practice; Contextual cues; Judgement."
## [4621] "Subscales: Information Exchange; Interpersonal Relationship; Disrespect and Abuse."
## [4622] "Subscales: Psychological Well-being (PW); Social Support (SS); Social and Environmental Security (SES); Spirituality (SP); Functional Health (FH); Mental and Physical Health (MPH); Health-Related Behaviors (HRB)."
## [4623] "Factors: Habitual action (HA); Understanding (U); Reflection (R); Critical reflection (CR)"
## [4624] "Factors: Personal Control; External Control; Stability"
## [4625] "Factors: Cognitive factor; Somatic/vegetative symptoms"
## [4626] "Subscales: Personal competence; Acceptance of self and life."
## [4627] "Subscales: Secure Attachment (SA); Anxious Attachment (AxA); Avoidant Attachment (AvA)."
## [4628] "Factors: Autonomy; Enjoyment; Habit; Impulsiveness; Outcome Expectancy; Self-Presentation."
## [4629] "Subscales: Universal-nonuniversal beliefs; Fixed-growth beliefs."
## [4630] "Factors: Social referrals (SOR); Information quality (IQ); Transaction safety (TS); Trust (TRU); Continued use of Airbnb (CU); Positive word-of-mouth intention (PWOM)."
## [4631] "Domains: Pain; Function; Fatigue; Sleep; Emotional wellbeing; Physical wellbeing; Coping/self-management."
## [4632] "Factors: Working memory; Inhibition."
## [4633] "Factors: Psychopathy; Machiavellianism; Narcissism."
## [4634] "Factors: Pain Willingness; Activity engagement."
## [4635] "Subscales: Activity Engagement; Pain Willingness."
## [4636] "Factors: Negative information processing style (NIPS); Positive information processing style (PIPS); Positive response evaluation style (PRES)."
## [4637] "Factors: Negative information processing style (NIPS); Positive information processing style (PIPS); Positive response evaluation style (PRES)."
## [4638] "Subscales: Attitudes towards HIV testing; Subjective norm; Barriers: Negative feelings about HIV testing; Barriers: Concern about privacy; Barriers: Structural barriers."
## [4639] "Subscales: Well-being; Calm; Adverse."
## [4640] "Domains: Quality of Care; Interpersonal Relationship (pharmacist/patient); Overall."
## [4641] "Subscales: Lack of cognitive confidence (CC); Positive beliefs (POS); Cognitive self-consciousness (CSC); Uncontrollability and danger (NEG); Need to control thoughts (NC)."
## [4642] "Dimensions: Preservation; Use; Global."
## [4643] "Factors: Positive connection to nature and other people; Unpredictable or negative cognitive responses; Physical reactions."
## [4644] "Factors: Affective Instability; Identity Problems; Self-Harm; Negative Relationships."
## [4645] "Factors: Religious Beliefs; Mistrust; Health Beliefs/Fears; Role Overload; Perceived Benefits."
## [4646] "Factors: Computational Thinking; Robotic Coding and Software; Professional Development and Career Planning."
## [4647] "Factor: Global cognitive performance."
## [4648] "Factors: Data-informed decision-making; Safe and orderly school operation; High, cohesive and culturally relevant expectations for all students; Distributive and empowering leadership; Coherent curricular programs; Real-time and embedded instructional assessment; Commitment and passion for school renewal"
## [4649] "Subscales: Exercise; Task Persistence; Relaxation; Cognitive Control-Diverting Attention; Cognitive Control-Coping Self-Statements; Cognitive Control-Reinterpreting Sensations; Cognitive Control-Avoid Catastrophizing; Cognitive Control-Ignoring Pain; Pacing; Avoid Pain Contingent Rest; Avoid Asking for Assistance; Assertive Communication; Proper Body Mechanics."
## [4650] "Subscales: Identity; Self-Direction; Empathy; Intimacy."
## [4651] "Subscales: Distance; Time flexibility; Frequency; Long distance/leisure."
## [4652] "Subscales: Trans-inclusive messaging; Name/pronoun usage; Outreach; Gender-affirming practice; Referral comfort; Inclusive intake forms."
## [4653] "Factors: Prementalization; Certainty in Mental States; Interest and Curiosity."
## [4654] "Factors: Empathic concern; Interpersonal OCBs towards peers (OCB-I); Privacy invasion peers; Crowding perceptions; Person-Organization Fit (POF); Relational conflict."
## [4655] "Factors: Überlebensschuldgefühl (Guilty of Survival); Trennungsschuldgefühl (Separation Guilt); Schuldgefühl aus Verantwortung/Pflicht (Omnipotent Responsibility Guilt [Feeling the Guilt of Responsibility/Duty])."
## [4656] "Factors: Leaving Family Behind; Having More Privileges; Becoming Different; Experiencing Pressures."
## [4657] "Factors: Adaptability; Expressivity"
## [4658] "Constructs: Affective irreplaceability; Behavioral compulsion; Cognitive preoccupation; Habit; Online social game addiction; Self-reactive expectation; Usage Experience; Usage Frequency; Social Desirability Bias."
## [4659] "Factors: Psycho-social aspects; Physical fit of hearing device; Hearing device sound quality and understanding conversation; Anxiety; Self-image; Physical sensations; Wax-related"
## [4660] "Factors: Active Coping; Passive Coping; Loneliness; Online Disclosure; Offline Disclosure."
## [4661] "Subscales: Light touch; Pressure; Pin-prick; Temperature; Tactile localization; Bilateral simultaneous touch; Appreciation of joint movement; Direction of movement sense; Joint position sense; Two-point discrimination; Stereognosis."
## [4662] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression."
## [4663] "Constructs: Proactive Technological Orientation; IT Connectivity; Internal Communication; Supply Chain Member Pressure; Member Relationship Quality; Business Systems Leveraging; Information Sharing; Supply Chain Performance; Uncertainty; Process Innovation."
## [4664] "Factors: Careful in daily life; Stockpiling; Health monitoring."
## [4665] "Factors: Wisdom; Courage; Humanity; Justice; Temperance: Transcendence. Subscales: Creativity; Curiosity; Love of Learning; Open-mindedness; Perspective; Honesty; Bravery; Industry; Zest; Kindness; Love; Social intelligence; Fairness; Leadership; Citizenship; Forgiveness; Humility; Prudence; Self-regulation; App. of beauty; Gratitude; Hope; Humor; Spirituality; Wisdom; Courage; Humanity; Justice; Temperance; Trascendence."
## [4666] "Factors: Self-determining reason; Conformity reason."
## [4667] "Factors: Inattention/memory; Hyperactivity; Impulsivity; Self-concept."
## [4668] "Factors: Interference of Heroin (IH); Frequency of Craving (FC); Control of Heroin (CH)."
## [4669] "Factors: Present perceived powerlessness; Future perceived powerlessness; Financial perceived powerlessness."
## [4670] "Subscales: Personal; Social; Cognitive."
## [4671] "Scales: Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief (PTSE); Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE)."
## [4672] "Factors: Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy (PMTE); Mathematics Teaching Outcome Expectancy (MTOE)."
## [4673] "Factors: Chronic Fatigue (CF); Acute Fatigue (AF); Intershift Recovery (IR)."
## [4674] "Factors: Efficient Sexual Function; Inefficient Sexual Function."
## [4675] "Factors: COMP 1; COMP 2; COMP 3; COMP 4."
## [4676] "Factors: Realistic fears about medical fragility and anxieties related to spiritual or afterlife issues (F1); fears about dying alone and defenseless (F2)."
## [4677] "Second Order Factor: Hotel Employees' Perceived Job Risk (HEPJR). First-Order Factors: Human risk (PHR); Equipment risk (PER); Internal environment risk (PIER); external environment risk (PEER); management risk (PMR)."
## [4678] "Subscales: Chronic Fatigue (CF); Acute Fatigue (AF); Intershift Recovery (IR)"
## [4679] "Factors: Continuous; Intermittent; Affective; Neuropathic."
## [4680] "Factors: Physical; Psychological; Hardship; Nausea; Social."
## [4681] "Factors: Stigma; Value; Respect."
## [4682] "Factors: Positive Beliefs about Worry (POS); Negative Beliefs about Worry (NEG); Cognitive Confidence (CC); Need for Control (NC); Cognitive Self-Consciousness (CSC)."
## [4683] "Subscales: Capability; Opportunity; Motivation."
## [4684] "Domains: Knowledge; Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about capability; Optimism; Beliefs about consequences; Emotion; Intentions; Goals; Environmental context and resources; Social influences; Reinforcement."
## [4685] "Subscales: Belief about the substances; Attitudes toward substance abuse; Anti-drug information."
## [4686] "Subscales: Autonomy irrational beliefs (AIB); Relatedness irrational beliefs (RIB); Competence irrational beliefs (CIB)."
## [4687] "Subscales: Occupation (O); Activities (A); Traits (T)."
## [4688] "Factors: Total working experience; Proactive personality; Organization socialization; Initial need-supply misfit; Initial demand-ability misfit; Person-organization fit; Person-group fit; Person-supervisor fit; Person-mentor fit; Actual turnover; Task performance"
## [4689] "Subscales: Underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms; Responses to problem behavior and symptoms; On-the-job behavior; Self-efficacy at work; Reactions to the work; Personal support of TIC; System-wide support for TIC."
## [4690] "Subscales: Conceptual; Procedural."
## [4691] "Subscales: Intercultural friendship orientation; Interest in foreign affairs; Intercultural approach-avoidance tendency; Interest in international occupation or activities."
## [4692] "Subscales: Reframing; Reappraisal effort."
## [4693] "Subscales: Descriptive norms for close friends' reasons to use PBS; Injunctive norms for close friends' reasons to use PBS."
## [4694] "Subscales: Informational support; Emotional support; Peer support."
## [4695] "Subscales: Top management participation (TMP); Attitude (ATT); Subjective norms (SN); Behavioral intention (INT); Self-efficacy (SE); Perceived risk vulnerability (PV); Response cost (RC); Perceived response efficacy (RE); Perceived severity of sanctions (PSS); Perceived certainty of sanctions (PCS); National smartphone cybersecurity policies (NSCP); Actual smartphone security compliance behavior (AC); Smartphone-specific security threats (SSF)."
## [4696] "Factors: Rational beliefs (RB); Irrational beliefs (IB). Subscales: Non-demanding preferences; Rational frustration tolerance; Rational realistic negative evaluations; Rational self and other acceptance; Irrational demandingness; Irrational frustration intolerance; Irrational catastrophizing/awfulizing; Irrational global condemnation of human worth (self/others/life downing)."
## [4697] "Factors: Environmental turbulence; Entrepreneurial orientation; Organizational unlearning; Radical innovation."
## [4698] "Factors: Outcome control; Activity control; Capability control; Functional customer-oriented behaviors; Relational customer-oriented behaviors."
## [4699] "Factors: New Product Development Performance; Entrepreneurial Orientation; Market Orientation; Environmental Turbulence. Subfactors: Innovativeness; Proactiveness; Risk-taking."
## [4700] "Factors: Celebrity endorser credibility; Brand image; Purchase intention; Brand differentiation."
## [4701] "Sub-Dimensions: Change-driving; Bootstrapping; Risk-taking. Subscales: Risk (RT; Risk-taking); Proactiveness (PA; Change-driving); Innovativeness (IN; Change-driving); Customer orientation (CO; Bootstrapping); Resource leveraging 1 (RL1; Bootstrapping); Resource leveraging 2 (RL2; Bootstrapping); Market-driving (MD; Change-driving)."
## [4702] "Factors: Strategic flexibility; Explorative capability; Exploitative capability; Magnitude of marketing strategy response; Top management commitment; Organization-wide commitment: existential criticality; Organization-wide commitment: embracement."
## [4703] "Subscales: Amotivation; External regulation; Introjected motivation; Identified motivation; Intrinsic motivation."
## [4704] "Factors: Harm Reduction; Abstinence."
## [4705] "Factors: Commitment to Recovery; Commitment to Harm Reduction."
## [4706] "Scales: Images of Curiosity; Attitudes towards Epistemic Curiosity. Factors: Social Image; Epistemic Image; Personal Inclination; Societal Relevance; Negative Opinion; Fear of Negative Judgment; Self-Efficacy."
## [4707] "Subscales: Motivation (Perceived Value and Valence); Self-management (Interdependence); Self-monitoring (Metacognitive Proficiency)."
## [4708] "Factors: Destination Femininity (Grace; Gorgeousness; Softness; Kindheartedness); Destination Masculinity (Dominance; Vigor; Courage; Competence)."
## [4709] "Subscales: Depressive symptoms; Vegetative symptoms; Symptoms of agoraphobia; Symptoms of socialphobia; Pain symptoms."
## [4710] "Subscales: Verbal Perseveration; Imaginal Prefiguration."
## [4711] "Subscales: Antagonistic; Synergistic; Social; Negative Effects."
## [4712] "Factors: Health and function; Living environment; Carers’ perception of fall and fall risk."
## [4713] "Factors: Parental Permission; Self-Disclosure; Academic Performance Decrement; Privacy Concerns; Parental Encouragement; Parental Worry; Parental Monitoring; Social networking site fatigue."
## [4714] "Factors: Core disgust; Interpersonal disgust."
## [4715] "Factors: Personalization; Perceived Entertainment; Perceived Informativeness; Perceived Creativity; Perceived Credibility; Utilitarian click-through motivation; Hedonic click-through motivation; Urge to Buy Impulsively."
## [4716] "Factors: Emotional support; Practical support; Co-parent."
## [4717] "Factors: Teacher support; Teacher promotes interaction; Teacher promotes mutual respect; Teacher promotes performance goals."
## [4718] "Factors: Positive Climate; Teacher Sensitivity; Regard for Adolescent Perspective."
## [4719] "Subscales: Lifestyle Restrictions; Positive Coping; Negative Emotion."
## [4720] "Factors: Information technology use for work; Power distance; Masculinity; Technostress; Techno-invasion; Techno-overload; Techno-complexity; Techno-insecurity; Techno-uncertainty."
## [4721] "Factors: Travel fear; Threat severity; Threat susceptibility; Response efficacy; Self-efficacy; Protection motivation; Resilience; Problem-focused coping; Self-supported emotional coping; Social-support emotional coping; Disengagement coping; Travel avoidance; Cautious travel."
## [4722] "Factors: Environment; Information."
## [4723] "Factors: Worry; Self-Focus; Bodily Symptoms; Somatic Tension; Perceived Control."
## [4724] "Factors: Positive recognition; Task assignment; Relationship establishment"
## [4725] "Subscales: Explaining skills (Tier1); Reasoning from an addressee-oriented perspective (Tier2_A); Reasoning from a subject-oriented perspective (Tier2_S)."
## [4726] "Constructs: Functional Failure (scalability and response failure); Functional Failure (ergonomics failure); Information Failure (accuracy failure); Information Failure (assurance failure); System Failure; Perceived justice with service recovery (PJWSR) (Distributive); PJWSR (Procedural); PJWSR (Interactive); Post-recovery satisfaction (SSR); Perceived customer opportunism (PCO); Post-recovery perceived switching cost (PSC); E-loyalty."
## [4727] "Factors: Motivated use; Expanded perception; Experiential value"
## [4728] "Factors: Motivation; Self-efficacy."
## [4729] "Factors: Behavioural social avoidance; Behavioural non-social avoidance; Cognitive social avoidance; Cognitive non-social avoidance."
## [4730] "Factors: Behavioral-social avoidance; Cognitive-non-social avoidance; Cognitive-social avoidance; Behavioral-non-social avoidance."
## [4731] "Factors: Cognitive Nonsocial, Behavioral Nonsocial, Behavioral Social and Cognitive Social"
## [4732] "Factors: Behavioral-social avoidance; Cognitive-non-social avoidance; Cognitive-social avoidance; Behavioral-non-social avoidance."
## [4733] "Factors: Early Postmodern; Current Postmodern"
## [4734] "Subscales: Task-orientation; Relationship-orientation."
## [4735] "Factors: College-bound identity; Circumstances and financial burden; Academic preparation; Other career options."
## [4736] "Factors: Augmenting Adaptations; Reducing/Reordering Adaptations."
## [4737] "Factors: Detachment self-efficacy; Expectations of feeling relaxed; Expectations of having fun; Expectations of gaining perspective; Expectations of connecting with loved ones; Expectations of making progress on personal priorities and projects (Positive Outcome Expectations); Expectations of planning stress before the vacation; Expectations of stress during the vacation; Expectations of being perceived as less committed by supervisors and/or colleagues; Expectations of burdening coworkers; Expectations of falling behind at work; Expectations of falling behind in housework; Expectations of negative financial consequences (Negative Outcome Expectations)."
## [4738] "Factors: Psychomotor Acceleration; Hopelessness; Suicide Tendency; Overactivity; Retardation; Distraction/Impulsivity."
## [4739] "Factors: Impulsive-Aversive; Controlled-Aversive; Controlled-Appetitive; Impulsive-Appetitive."
## [4740] "Subscales: Rage aggression; Revenge aggression; Reward aggression; Recreation aggression."
## [4741] "Dimensions: Acceptance/Medication Inconvenience; Acceptance/Long-Term Treatment; Acceptance/Regimen Constraints; Acceptance/Numerous Medications; Acceptance/Side Effects; Acceptance/Effectiveness; Acceptance/General."
## [4742] "Subscales: Passion transfer; Organizational innovation; Self-enhancing passion; Self-transcending passion; Mutual communication; Organizational barriers-behavior; Organizational barriers-incentive."
## [4743] "Subscales: Connecting; Knowing."
## [4744] "Subscales: Being attentive; Reciprocity."
## [4745] "Subscales: Country image; Attitude towards the Country; Product-Country Image; Need for Cognition; Need for Affect."
## [4746] "Subscales: Attitude; Disclosure and Help-seeking; Social Distance."
## [4747] "Subscales: Consumer Ethnocentrism; Self-Direction; Stimulation; Achievement; Power; Hedonism; Perceived Product Quality; Purchase Intention."
## [4748] "Subscales: Joint planning (JP); Joint problem solving (JPS); Interface standardization; Tacitness of knowledge (TOK); Contracts; Intellectual property rights (IPRs); Product innovation."
## [4749] "Subscales: Intrinsic/extrinsic enjoyment value; Logistics value; Efficiency value."
## [4750] "Factors: Fear; Somatic Concerns."
## [4751] "Subscales: Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards people suffering from chronic pain; Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards biopsychosocial impacts of CP; Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards treatment of CP."
## [4752] "Factors: Perceived concerns; Perceived benefits; Stigma and disclosure."
## [4753] "Factors: Inhibition of harmful intention (IHI); Prosocial intention (PI)."
## [4754] "Factors: Decisional = Presence of Positive Emotion; Emotional = Reduction of Negative Emotion."
## [4755] "Factors: Program effectiveness; Teaching quality; Ethics and Professionalism; Learner support; Safety and convenience; Awareness of the rules."
## [4756] "Factors: Mental health problems; Cognitive problems; Physical problems."
## [4757] "Factors: Perceived Time Use Context - Time-of-Day; Perceived Time Use Context - Day of the Week; Perceived Location Use Context - Physical Distraction; Perceived Location Use Context - Location Characteristics; Perceived Social Use Context - Social Place; Perceived Social Use Context - Occurrence of Social Relations; Perceived Technological Use Context - Connected Device; Perceived Technological Use Context - Network Connectivity."
## [4758] "Factors: Cognitive Competence; Value; Difficulty; Affect; Effort; Interest."
## [4759] "Factors: Socially Prescribe Perfectionism (SPP); Self Oriented Perfectionism (SOP)."
## [4760] "Factors: Socially prescribed perfectionism-SF ; Self-oriented perfectionism-SF."
## [4761] "Subscales: Intrinsic value; Attainment value (Importance of achievement); Attainment value (Personal importance); Utility value (Utility for daily life); Utility value (Utility for job); Utility value (Utility for school); Utility value (Social utility); Cost (Effort cost); Cost (Opportunity cost); Cost (Ego cost); Cost (Emotional cost); Expectancy (Self-efficacy)."
## [4762] "Subscales: Content; Structure."
## [4763] "Factors: Rigid Perfectionism; Self-Critical Perfectionism; Narcissistic Perfectionism."
## [4764] "Subscales: Positive mood; Negative mood."
## [4765] "Factors (Facets): Self-critical perfectionism (Concern over mistakes; Doubts about actions; Self-criticism; Socially prescribed perfectionism); Rigid perfectionism (Self-oriented perfectionism; Self-worth contingencies); Narcissistic perfectionism (Other-oriented perfectionism; Hypercriticism; Entitlement; Grandiosity)."
## [4766] "Subscales: Internal flow; External flow."
## [4767] "Subscales: Awareness of needs; Ascription of responsibility; Outcome efficacy; Personal norms; Attitudes; Social norms; Impulsive purchase behavior; Perceived behavior control."
## [4768] "Subscales: Free Will; Fatalistic Determinism; Scientific Determinism; Unpredictability."
## [4769] "Factors: Calm; Negative affect; Positive cognitions; Behavioral avoidance."
## [4770] "Subscales: Negative affects; Calm; Cognitions; Behaviors."
## [4771] "Subscales: Self-confidence; Anxiety; Motivation; Grit; F2F WTC inside classroom; F2F WTC outside classroom; WTC in a digital environment."
## [4772] "Subscales: Societal; Personal."
## [4773] "Subscales: Learning; Creativity; Motivation; Leadership; Artistic; Musical; Dramatics; Communication-precision; Communication-expressiveness; Planning; Mathematics; Reading; Technology; Sciences."
## [4774] "Subscales: Attitude towards assisted dying; Attitude towards conscientious objection; Attitude towards secularism; Attitude towards abortion."
## [4775] "Subscales: Mathematics (Mat); Motion (Mot); Music (Mus); Information technology (It); Visuals (Vis); Hungarian language and literature (Lit); Foreign language (For)."
## [4776] "Subscales: Saccadic Goal Identification Assessment; Saccadic Goal Execution Assessment."
## [4777] "Subscales: ISP Compliance Behavior (COMP); Emotions; Security-Related Stress (SRS); Neutralization (NEUT); Positive and Negative Emotional States; Outside Activity (OA)."
## [4778] "Factors: Decisive involvement; Caring involvement; Appealing involvement."
## [4779] "Factors: Present feelings of comfortableness; Future working environment; Fear of negative influence on future patient relations."
## [4780] "Factors: Physical factors; Patients’ perception of nursing care; Emotional factors."
## [4781] "Subscales: External advice seeking; Internal advice seeking; Decision process comprehensiveness; Perceived environmental dynamism; Empowerment climate."
## [4782] "Subscales: Social Phobia (SP); Generalized Anxiety (GA); Separation Anxiety (SA)."
## [4783] "Factors: Somatic/panic; Social phobia; Generalized anxiety; Separation anxiety."
## [4784] "Subscales: Panic/somatic; Generalized anxiety; Separation anxiety; Social phobia; School phobia."
## [4785] "Subscales: Panic disorder; Generalized anxiety disorder; Separation anxiety disorder; Social anxiety; School anxiety."
## [4786] "Factors: Unpleasant affect; Pleasant affect; Cues and associated thoughts."
## [4787] "Subscales: DSED: Indiscriminate behaviors with strangers; RAD1: Failure to seek/accept comfort; RAD2: Withdrawal/hypervigilance."
## [4788] "Subscales: Positive; Religious; Family."
## [4789] "Subscales: Severity of ideation; Intensity of ideation; Suicidal behavior."
## [4790] "Subscales: Realistic (R); Investigative (I); Artistic (A); Social (S); Enterprising (E); Conventional (C)."
## [4791] "Subscales: Dominant (PA); Calculating (BC); Cold (DE); Self-Critical (FG); Submissive (HI); Ingratiating (JK); Warm (LM); Gregarious (NO)."
## [4792] "Subscales: Autonomy Granting; Autonomy Support; Dependability; Emotional Nurturance and Unconditional Love; Intrinsic Worth; Playfulness and Emotional Openness; Confidence and Competence."
## [4793] "Reasons: Behavioral norms; Child safety; Social relations and respect; Providing guidance; Moral development. Strategies: Nonphysical punishment; Setting and maintaining rules; Reasoning/negotiation; Consistency; Physical punishment and verbal control; Show parents' serious/stern attitude; Correction; Psychological control."
## [4794] "Subscales: Emotional cultural competence (ECC); Cognitive cultural competence (CCC); Behavioral cultural competence (BCC)"
## [4795] "Dimensions: University Logo (L); Typeface (LT); Design (LD); Colour (LC); University Name (LN); University Website (W); Navigation design (WND); Visual identify/design (WV); Information design (WI); Usability (WU); Customization (WCU); Security (WS); Availability (WA); Customer co-creation Behaviour; Customer participation behaviour Information seeking (CPO); Information sharing (CPIS); Responsible behavior (CPRB); Personal interaction (CPPI); Customer citizenship behavior Feedback (CCF); Advocacy (CCA); Tolerance (CCT); Helping (CCH); University reputation (R)."
## [4796] "Subscales: ADHD Index; DSM-IV Inattentive Symptoms; DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptoms; Inattention/Disorganization; Hyperactivity/Fidgetiness; Problems with Self-Concept; Frustration/Anger Control."
## [4797] "Subscales: Interpersonal communication; Community affairs; Home and hobbies; Personal care."
## [4798] "Subscales: Disorganized; Avoidance; Anxiety."
## [4799] "Factors: For the Parent, Self-Report (13-18), and Self-Report (8-12): Physical Symptoms; Cognitive Symptoms; Emotional Symptoms; Fatigue Symptoms. For the Self-Report (5-7): Physical Symptoms; Cognitive Symptoms; Emotional Symptoms."
## [4800] "Subscales: Nightmare threat; Nightmare harm; Blame/credit; Coping potential."
## [4801] "Factors: Racial centrality; Public regard; Private regard; Nationalist; Minority; Assimilation; Humanist."
## [4802] "Factors: Antisocial (Overt); Adjustment; Psychiatric History; Antisocial (Covert); Academic Problems."
## [4803] "Factors: Coding Confidence; Coding Interest; Utility; Social Influence; Perceptions of Coders."
## [4804] "Subscales: Attitude (AT); Effort expectancy (EE); Facilitating conditions (FC); Intention to use (IU); Performance expectancy (PE); Social influence (SI)."
## [4805] "Dimensions: Pre-requisites of Appreciation (Appreciation; Respect and Understanding: Benefits; Well-being; Competence); Realisation of IC (Patient-centredness; Information sharing; Goals; Actions; Participation; Evaluation)."
## [4806] "Subscales: Customer orientation toward sellers; Customer orientation toward buyers; Seller-side demand uncertainty; Buyer-side demand uncertainty; Performance; Reputation; Training; Information technology skills."
## [4807] "Factors: Rational; Behavioral; Emotional."
## [4808] "First-Order Factors: Aloof/Unaccountable (A/U); Entitled/Arrogant (E/A); Formal/Authoritarian (F/A). Second-Order Factor: CORS"
## [4809] "Factors: Internality; Chance; Doctors; Other people."
## [4810] "Factors: Internal; Chance; Powerful others."
## [4811] "Factors: Psychological vulnerability/susceptibility; Decision-making abilities"
## [4812] "AT Factors: Operational support; Physical Support; Psychological Support; Social Support; Cultural Match; Reduced External Help; Affordability; Travel Help; Compatibility; Effectiveness; Retention"
## [4813] "Subscales: Purpose and Connection; Help seeking; Beliefs about civilians; Resentment and regret; Regimentation."
## [4814] "Factors: Dietary restraint; Shape/weight overvaluation; Body dissatisfaction."
## [4815] "Subscales: Attractiveness; Trustworthiness; Expertise; Intimacy; Interactivity; Product Design; Product Development; Commercialization; Purchase Intention."
## [4816] "Factors: Socioemotional support; Instrumental support."
## [4817] "Subscales: Navigation anxiety; Mental rotation anxiety; Visualization anxiety."
## [4818] "Subscales: Disorders of Initiating Sleep; Disorders of Maintaining Sleep; Sleep Hyperhidrosis; Sleep Breathing Disorders; Parasomnias; Non-Restorative Sleep and Excessive Somnolence."
## [4819] "Factors: Managing Health Problems; Seeking Help and Support."
## [4820] "Subscales: Prospective memory ability; Retrospective memory ability"
## [4821] "Factors: Harmfulness of Stress; Usefulness of Stress."
## [4822] "Factors: Enhancement motive; Coping motive; Conformity motive; Social motive"
## [4823] "Factors: Advanced counseling; Basic counseling; Referral to services"
## [4824] "Factors: Operational skills; Information Navigation skills; Social skills; Creative skills; Mobile skills"
## [4825] "Subscales: Intention; Attitude; Subjective norm (SN); Perceived behavioral control (PBC); Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity."
## [4826] "Subscales: Autonomy support (AS); Autonomy thwarting (AT); Competence support (CS); Competence thwarting (CT); Relatedness support (RS); Relatedness thwarting (RT)."
## [4827] "Subscales: Autonomy support (AS); Autonomy thwarting (AT); Competence support (CS); Competence thwarting (CT); Relatedness support (RS); Relatedness thwarting (RT)."
## [4828] "Subscales: Dysphoria & Disheartenment; Loss of meaning and purpose; Sense of failure; Hopelessness."
## [4829] "Subscales: Optimistic Bias-Self; Optimistic Bias-Others; Risk Perception-Perceived susceptibility; Risk Perception-Perceived severity; Risk response-Anxiety; Risk response-Fear; Behavioral outcomes; Information seeking intentions."
## [4830] "Subscales: Autonomy support (AS); Autonomy thwarting (AT); Competence support (CS); Competence thwarting (CT); Relatedness support (RS); Relatedness thwarting (RT)."
## [4831] "Subscales: Worries about contracting the virus; Academic frustrations; Current mental health symptoms."
## [4832] "Subscales: Physiological; Psychological."
## [4833] "Subscales: Potential to augment; Psychoeducational value; Perceived risks; Perceived relevance."
## [4834] "Subscales: Professional Dispositions; Tasks; Goals; Bonds."
## [4835] "Domains: Disclosure Content (Details; Emotions; Cognitions; Beliefs; Social Experiences)."
## [4836] "Subscales: Fail Fast Strategy; Output Control; Product Complexity; Micromanagement; Profit Orientation; Sales Force Resources; Salesperson Extra-Role Behaviors."
## [4837] "Subscales: Business Ties Formative Scale; Planning Ties; Planning Flexibility; Demand Uncertainty; Customer Capital; Strategic Performance; Financial Performance."
## [4838] "Subscales: Other-focus; Self-focus; Game-playing; Self-protection; Social standing."
## [4839] "Subscales: Challenge; Self-esteem; Mate quality."
## [4840] "Subscales: Knowledge-Based TSIs; Hotel Opportunism (OPPT); Hotel Satisfaction (SAT); Representative Monitoring Ease (MON); LENGTH; SIZE; OWNS; BRAND."
## [4841] "Subscales: Customer orientation; Relationship management orientation; Solution orientation; Project management orientation; Process competence and efficiency; Innovation orientation; Technology orientation; Sustainability orientation; Quality orientation."
## [4842] "Dimensions: Breadth of channel; Transparency of channel; Appropriateness of channel; Information consistency; Transaction data integration; System consistency; Image consistency; Privacy; Security; Service recovery accessibility; Cross-buying intention; Perceived value."
## [4843] "Subscales: Public value; Organizational citizenship behavior; Work engagement; Employee common good orientation."
## [4844] "Factors: Interest-contents fit; Needs-supplies fit; Demands-abilities fit; Values-culture fit."
## [4845] "Factors: Psychological and Emotional Needs; Health Care and Information Needs; Work and Social Needs; Communication and Family Needs."
## [4846] "Subscales: Cognitive legitimacy; Moral legitimacy; Pragmatic legitimacy."
## [4847] "Factors: Media richness; Facebook intensity; Social capital; Sense of virtual community (SOVC); Trust; Purchase intention."
## [4848] "Scales: Capability (Psychological); Physical opportunity; Social opportunity; Reflective motivation; Automatic motivation (COM-B); Hygienic Practices."
## [4849] "Factors: Negative work-home interactions; Coworkers issues; Workload; Responsibilities burden; Financial issues; Emotional demands; Issues with clients; Feeling of being in danger."
## [4850] "Factor: Specific Domain; Metacognitive; Innovation; Autonomy."
## [4851] "Factors: Work Load (Carga de trabalho); Dealing with death and the process of death (Lidar com a morte e o processo da morte); Suffering of patients (Sofrimento dos pacientes); Stress with co-workers (Estresse com colegas de trabalho); Dealing with patient and family requirements (Lidar com requisitos dos pacientes e familiares)."
## [4852] "Component: General Pseudoscientific Beliefs."
## [4853] "Factors: Intrinsic (INTR); Integrated (INTEG); Identified (IDENT); Introjected (INTRO); Extrinsic (EXTR); Amotivation (AMOT)."
## [4854] "Subscales: Behavior/conduct; Conduct disorder; Aggressive; Nonaggressive; Oppositionalism; Attention deficit; Inattention; Impulsivity; Overactivity; Alcohol/drug abuse; Affective/neurotic; Anxiety; Separation anxiety; Overanxious; Fears/phobias; Simple fears; Social phobias; Obsessive-compulsive; Schizoid/psychotic; Affective disorders; Mania; Depression; Affective; Cognitive; Vegetative; Suicidal."
## [4855] "Factors: Women's health protection; Chemical exposure prevention; Alternative consumption; Community-oriented behavior."
## [4856] "Factors: Criminal History; Antisocial Attitudes and Associates; Positive Psychotic Symptomology; Social Functioning; Social Networking; Substance Abuse; Negative Affect; Traumatic History."
## [4857] "Factors: Impulse Purchase (IP); Information Content (IC); Streamer Admiration (SA); Psychological Distance (PD)."
## [4858] "Factors: Driver's Emotional Attention (DEA); Driver's Emotional Clarity (DEC); Driver's Emotional Regulation (DER)"
## [4859] "Subscales: Perceived Price (PP); Perceived Quality (PQ); Website Security (WS); Customer Experience (CE); Comment and Rating (CR); Corporate Image and Reputation (CI); Customer Trust (CT); Customer Satisfaction (ST);"
## [4860] "Scales: Staffing; Organization; Service."
## [4861] "Subscales: Staffing: Organization; Services."
## [4862] "Subscales: Forgetting; False Memory."
## [4863] "Subscales: Forgetting; False Memory."
## [4864] "Subscales: Tier 1; Tier 2; Tier 3."
## [4865] "Subscales: Praise; Indulgence; Status."
## [4866] "Factors: Severity/Irreparability; Blame/unfairness."
## [4867] "Subscales: Awareness; Non-judgment."
## [4868] "Factors: Reading perception; Reading memory; Reading thinking; Reading emotion; Reading will; Reading attention; Other influencing factors."
## [4869] "Subscales: Object Valuation; Personal identification; Perceived Capacity; Knowledge; Level of Practices."
## [4870] "Factors: Interpersonal Fit at Work; Thriving at Work; Feeling of Competency at Work; Perceived Recognition at Work; Desire for Involvement at Work."
## [4871] "Subscales: Critical events (Ce); Daily hassles (Dh); Social exposure (Se); Family concerns (Fc); Academic stressors (As); Social pressure (Sp)."
## [4872] "Factors: Interpersonal relationships; Work functioning; Cognitive functioning; Autonomy"
## [4873] "Factors: Values/Commitment; Acceptance/Defusion; Goals/Barriers."
## [4874] "Subscales: Values commitment; Defused acceptance."
## [4875] "Factors: Violaciones (Violations); Errores (Errors); Lapsus (Blunders); Conductas Agresivas (Aggressive Behaviors); Conductas Positivas (Positive Behaviors)."
## [4876] "Factors: Invalidation; Incomprehensibility; Fault; Simplistic view; Devaluation; Lost of control; Insensitivity; Rationality; Duration; Low consensus; Non-acceptance; Rumination; Low expression; Blaming others."
## [4877] "Subscales: Validation; Comprehensibility; Guilt; Simplistic View of Emotion; Higher Values; Control; Numbness; Rational; Duration; Consensus; Acceptance of Feelings; Rumination; Expression; Blame."
## [4878] "Subscales: Subscales: Invalidation; Incomprehensibility; Guilt; Simplistic View of Emotion; Devalued; Loss of Control; Numbness; Overly Rational; Duration; Low Consensus; Non-Acceptance of Feelings; Rumination; Low Expression; Blame."
## [4879] "Subscales: Negative evaluation; Emotion regulation."
## [4880] "Factors: Amotivation (AMOT); External Regulation (EXT); Introjected Regulation (INTROJ); Identified Regulation (IDENT); Integrated Regulation (INTEGR); Intrinsic Motivation (IM)."
## [4881] "Subscales: Antibiotic resistance; Normative use; Adverse reaction; Basic knowledge."
## [4882] "Subscales: Knowledge of the Child's Characteristics; Perceived Social Supports; Positive Perception of Parenting."
## [4883] "Subscales: Self-centered emotional evaluation; Evaluation of emotions centered on others; Regulation of self-centered emotion; Regulation of emotions centered on others."
## [4884] "Dimensions: Longing for and differences with the country of Origin; Adaptation in school, family and relationship with peers; Experiences of discrimination."
## [4885] "Factors: (1) Aversion toward doze; (2) Hypersensitivity toward others' reactions about my doze; (3) Sense of defeat caused by doze."
## [4886] "Factors: Decline in basic taste; Discomfort; Phantogeusia; General taste alterations."
## [4887] "Factors: Work/School problems; Home/Family problems; Close/Intimate relationships; Social problems."
## [4888] "Predicted Variables: Intentions to follow government recommendations; physical distancing behavior; fear control responses. EPPM Variables: Perceived threat; Perceived efficacy."
## [4889] "Subscales: Activities; Participation."
## [4890] "Subscales: Computer Proficiency; Computer Integration."
## [4891] "Factors: Cognitive (Language learning proficiency; Language learning beliefs); Affective/evaluative (Extrinsic motivation; Intrinsic motivation; Teacher influence); Behavioral/personality (Inhibition; Exhibition; Tolerance of ambiguity; Learning effort)."
## [4892] "Factors: Perceived Age-Related Losses (AARC-Losses); Perceived Age-Related Gains (AARC-Gains)."
## [4893] "Subscales: Role and Responsibility Pressures; Work Relationship Challenges; Challenges to Personal Spiritual Practices; Leading through Change & Controversy; Pastoral Care Challenges; Perceived Expectations Strain; Family versus Ministry Conflict; Time and Workload Strain; Financial Challenges; Preaching Challenges."
## [4894] "Subscales: Creative Initiative; Personal Spiritual Practices; Leadership/Management Practices; Pastoral Care Practices; Fostering Faith Development; Vocational Calling; Social Responsibilities; Ongoing Learning; Building Work Relationships; Time and Diversity of Tasks; Community Worship & Liturgy; Preaching."
## [4895] "Subscales: Xenophilic love; Xenophilic grace."
## [4896] "Factors: Goal Oriented Team Synergy (Factor S); Organizational Background for Teamwork (Factor O); Competence (Factor C, only COPAN-3)."
## [4897] "Factors: Perceived age-related gains; Perceived age-related losses."
## [4898] "Subscales: Value; Aspiration; Deprivation; Coping."
## [4899] "Scales: Tendency to Reread; Tendency to Read."
## [4900] "Factors: Quality of Information; Interaction and Support."
## [4901] "Subscales: Quality of information; Interaction and support; Efficiency of handover."
## [4902] "Factors: Parent-child communication about consumption; Restriction of consumption; Children's consumption autonomy; Children's influence; Television viewing"
## [4903] "Subscales: Technology acceptance–Perceived ease of use; Technology acceptance–Perceived usefulness; Technology acceptance–Attitude; Technology acceptance–Behavioral intention; Technology acceptance–Self-efficacy; Technology acceptance–Subjective norm; Information system success–Information quality; Information system success–Service quality; Information system success–System quality; Information system success–User satisfaction; Information system success–System use; Information system success–Net benefits."
## [4904] "Subscales: Attitude; Behavioral intention; Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness."
## [4905] "Subscales: Internalizing Problems (INT); Externalizing Problems (EXT)."
## [4906] "Factors: Compulsive behavior; Functional impairment; Withdrawal, Tolerance."
## [4907] "Factors: Single-factor measure (habitual positive thinking)."
## [4908] "Factors: Vulnerable child (VC); Angry child (AC); Enraged child (EC); Impulsive child (IC); Undisciplined child (UC); Happy child (HC); Punitive mode (PM); Demanding mode (DM); Healthy adult (HA); Compliant surrender (CS); Detached protector (Det.P); Detached self-soother (Det.SS); Self-aggrandizer (SA); Bully and attack (BA); Helpless surrenderer (HS); Eating disorder overcontroller (EDO)."
## [4909] "Subscales: Relative advantage; Compatibility; Complexity; Observability; Trialability; Future use intentions."
## [4910] "Subscales: Relative advantage; Compatibility; Complexity; Future use intentions."
## [4911] "Factors: Personal Impairment; Cognitive Impairment; Social Impairment."
## [4912] "Factors: Personal Impairment; Social Impairment; Cognitive Impairment."
## [4913] "Factors: Daily Activities; Manage Disease in General."
## [4914] "Factors: Identification with the heritage culture; Identification with the mainstream culture."
## [4915] "Factors: Identification with the heritage culture; Identification with the mainstream culture."
## [4916] "Subscales: Constructive Learning (ConL); Quick and Natural Learning (NatL); Constructive Teaching (ConT); SRL Achieve (SRLAc); SRL Inconsistent (SRLNeg); Locus of Learning Control (LoLC); Transmissive Teaching (TranT)."
## [4917] "Factors: Anhedonia; Anxiety; Depression."
## [4918] "Subscales: Positive Affect; Negative Affect."
## [4919] "Factors: Cognitive yearning; Emotional yearning."
## [4920] "Factors: Visual Field or Scotoma; Visual Acuity. Subscales: Self-Care; Food Preparation; Home Management; Communication; Financial Management; Leisure; Shopping; Mobility."
## [4921] "Factors: Salience; Mood modification; Tolerance; Withdrawal; Conflict; Relapse."
## [4922] "Subscales: To know = Kn; To do = Do; To sense = Se; To care = Ca; To want = Wa."
## [4923] "Subscales: Disgust (EAQ-D); Interest (EAQ-I); Feeding animals (EAQ-F)."
## [4924] "Subscales: Assistance with physical care; Implementation of prescribed treatment plan; Surveillance, coordination of care and discharge planning; Documentation, planning and evaluation."
## [4925] "Subscales: Proactive Parenting; Positive Reinforcement; Warmth; Supportiveness; Hostility; Physical Control."
## [4926] "Domains: Identity Salience; Congruence with Group; Interpretation of Difficulty/School Dynamics; College Savings Account."
## [4927] "Factors: Importance of Modeling; Clinical Application; Self- Exploration/Awareness; Education and Knowledge."
## [4928] "Subscales: Leadership; Infrastructure and equipment; Continuing professional development (CPD); Teaching and learning – support; Teaching and learning – pedagogy; Assessment practices; Student digital competence."
## [4929] "Factors/Subscales: Perspective shifting (PS); Emotional reawakening (ER)"
## [4930] "Factors: Anger; Boredom; Enjoyment; Pride."
## [4931] "Factors: Mother and Infant Physical–Psychological Readiness; Expected Support; Knowledge of Future Events and Care; Infant Personal Care Knowledge; Pain; Treatment Interventions."
## [4932] "Factors: Positive Relations; Belonging; Inclusion; Participation; Mental health awareness"
## [4933] "Factors: Affective basis of commitment; Normative basis of commitment; Continuance basis of commitment."
## [4934] "Factors: Virtual popularity; Entertainment; Socializing; Information seeking."
## [4935] "Factors: Active Engagement (AE); Independent Critical Thinking (ICT)."
## [4936] "Subscales: Active Engagement (AE); Independent Critical Thinking (ICT)."
## [4937] "Factors: Negative Affect; Social Pressure; Physical and Other Concerns about Using Drugs; Cravings and Urges."
## [4938] "Scales: Self-Efficacy; Temptation. Dimensions: Negative Affect; Social/Positive; Physical and Other Concerns; Cravings and Urges."
## [4939] "Factors: Resident attitudes towards being in long-term care; Quality of care and caregivers; Resident engagement and peer relationships; Keeping in touch with people and places; Quality of the physical environment"
## [4940] "Sections: SARS-CoV-2 related attitudes; SARS-CoV-2 related stressors; SARS-CoV-2 related work outcomes."
## [4941] "Factors: Emotional Distress; Worry Time."
## [4942] "Factors: Perceived organizational support for strengths use (POSSU); Perceived organizational support for deficit correction (POSDC); Strengths use behavior (SUB); Deficit correction behavior (DCB)."
## [4943] "Factors: POS for strengths use; Deficit correction behaviour; Strengths use behaviour; POS for deficit correction."
## [4944] "Factors: Selecting and eating; Access and preparation; Food labels and measurements; Picky eating; Eating snacks."
## [4945] "Factors: Intrapersonal Conflict; Intragroup Conflict; Intergroup Conflict; Causes of Conflict."
## [4946] "Sections: Relevance; Judgment. Factors: Family; Group; Reciprocity; Heroism; Deference; Fairness; Property."
## [4947] "Subscales: Considering the individuality of athletes; Framing learning situations; Imparting coaching knowledge; Respecting preferences for effort, accountability, and feedback; Creating personalized programming."
## [4948] "Subscales: Perceived Ease of Use; Perceived Usefulness; and Attitudes toward the EHR."
## [4949] "Subscales: Separation anxiety disorder; Social phobia; Generalized anxiety disorder; Panic disorder; Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Major depressive disorder."
## [4950] "Factor: Low Emotion Awareness/Suppression."
## [4951] "Subscales: Empathy; Self-regulation & Cooperation."
## [4952] "Subscales: Participates in healthy interactions; Expresses a range of emotions; Regulates social-emotional responses with caregiver support; Regulates social-emotional responses; Attends to and engages with others; Shares attention and engages with others; Explores hands and feet and surroundings; Demonstrates independence; Displays a positive self-image; Regulates activity level; Regulates attention and activity level; Cooperates with daily routines and requests; Shows a range of adaptive skills."
## [4953] "Subscales: Victimization; Perpetration."
## [4954] "Subscales: Instructor's limited competence in clinical environments; Inappropriate clinical environment; Inadequate knowledge and skills; Inefficient education in clinical planning; Instructor's inappropriate conduct; Concerns about the characteristics of nursing career."
## [4955] "Subscales: Negative reactions; Tangible aid; Emotional support."
## [4956] "Factors: Interpersonal Action; Communal Action; Political Change Action."
## [4957] "Subscales: Abuse of Power; Justice; Lack of Autonomy; Meaning; Humanization"
## [4958] "Subscales: Heterosexism; Homophobia; Homonegativity; Neutrality."
## [4959] "Subscales: Coactivity; Support; Directing."
## [4960] "Factors: Entertainment; Revival; Strong Sensation; Diversion; Discharge; Mental Work; Solace."
## [4961] "Factors: Market turbulence; Technological turbulence; Competitive intensity; Perceived importance of innovation; Innovativeness; Business performance."
## [4962] "Factors: Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Perceived behavioral control; Subjective norms; Trust; Resistance bias; Eye health consciousness; Perceived risks; Intention to use."
## [4963] "Subscales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [4964] "Factors: Availability stress; approval anxiety; fear of missing out; connection overload; online vigilance."
## [4965] "Subscales: Sexual satisfaction; Physical intimacy; Emotional closeness during sex; Sexual compatibility; Distress related to problematic sexual function."
## [4966] "Subscales: Idea generation; Market‐based partnerships; Front‐end performance."
## [4967] "Factors: Doctrinal Buddhism; Nat cult; Weikza Line. Dimensions: Centrality of Religiosity Public; Centrality of Religiosity Private; Centrality of Religiosity Religious Experience; Centrality of Religiosity Ideology; Centrality of Religiosity Intellect."
## [4968] "Factors: General symptoms; Birth-related symptoms."
## [4969] "Factors: Friendly behaviors; Unfriendly behaviors. Subscales: Friendly behaviors; Avoidant behaviors; Relationally hostile behaviors."
## [4970] "Primary Factors: POM Target (POMS-T); POM Agent (POMS-A). Secondary Factor: POM Emotional Impact (POMS-E). POMS-T and POMS-A Subscales: Verbal Policing Epithets; Physical Policing Challenges; Masculinity Deviations."
## [4971] "Factors: Personality & Behavior Teasing; Family & Environment Teasing; School-Related Teasing; Teasing About My Body."
## [4972] "Factors: Openness to Seeking Treatment; Value and Need in Seeking Treatment."
## [4973] "Subscales: Game Interface; Game Task. Sub-constructs: Prior experience; Positive emotion; Occurrence frequency; Level of processing; Retention rate"
## [4974] "Factors: Perceptions of fit (Person-organization; Person-job)."
## [4975] "Subscales: 1- Response to the child (sensitivity to the child’s interests, responsivity, reciprocity, inventiveness); 2- Control (directiveness, pace); 3- Affect (enjoyment, warmth, acceptance); 4- Support to learning (stimulation)."
## [4976] "Factors: Cooperative morality; Sexual morality."
## [4977] "Subscales: Parenting interventions are worthwhile, and I'd deliver them; Parenting interventions are worthwhile, but I'm not confident to deliver them; Parenting interventions might be worthwhile, but it's not my responsibility."
## [4978] "Factors: Mental Fatigue; Physical Fatigue."
## [4979] "Factors: View on life and future; Self-confidence and inner strength."
## [4980] "Factors: Inner connectedness and positive readiness and expectancy; Loneliness and fear for the future."
## [4981] "Subscales: Recruitment; Organising; Work well-being; Work atmosphere; Communication; Clinical nursing; Development of the unit; Personnel development; Development of nursing; Financial management; Planning and evaluation of activities; Collaboration; Development with collaborating partners."
## [4982] "Subscales: Immediate Memory; Delayed Memory."
## [4983] "Subscales: Organizational learning culture (OLC); Self-efficacy (SE); Motivation to transfer (MTT); Learning transfer climate (LTC)."
## [4984] "Factors: Social distance; Procedural justice; Legitimacy; Violent subculture."
## [4985] "Subscales: Affective Tasks in an Environment Context (AFF_ENV); Behavioral Tasks in an Environment Context (BEH_ENV); Cognitive Tasks in an Environment Context (COG_ENV); Affective Tasks in an Interpersonal Scale (AFF_INT); Behavioral Tasks in an Interpersonal Scale (BEH_INT); Cognitive Tasks in an Interpersonal Context (COG_INT)."
## [4986] "Subscales: Interpersonal emotion regulation; Intrapersonal emotion regulation."
## [4987] "Factors: Family Pillar; Virtuous and Chaste; Subordinate to Others; Self‐Silencing to Maintain Harmony; Spiritual Pillar."
## [4988] "Subscales: Physical; Psychological; Existential; Social."
## [4989] "Domains: Single-Item Scale (SIS); Physical symptoms; Feelings and thoughts; Social."
## [4990] "Subscales: Agent; Target."
## [4991] "Factors: Child maltreatment; Household dysfunction; Community dysfunction; Peer dysfunction/Property victimization"
## [4992] "Factors: Thwarted belongingness; Perceived burdensomeness."
## [4993] "Factors: Thwarted Belongingness (TB); Perceived Burdensomeness (PB)."
## [4994] "Factors: Disinhibition; Type of Food; Guilt."
## [4995] "Factors: Performance Evaluation; Need for Approval; Autonomous Attitude; Tentativeness."
## [4996] "Factors: Negative Self Concept; Confusion/Escape Fantasies; Personal Maladjustment and Desire for Change; Loneliness/Isolation; Giving up and Helplessness."
## [4997] "Subscales: Neighborhood Disruption; Neighborhood Gentrification."
## [4998] "Factors: Communication, agreements, and coordination; Positive encouragement and tailoring; and Supporting independent performance."
## [4999] "Subscales: Pro-environmental attitude; Descriptive Social Norm; Injunctive social norm; Pro-environmental image; Environmental awareness; Perceived benefits; Feeling of guilt; Moral norm; Pro-environmental consumption intention."
## [5000] "Factors: Dealing with discrimination; Diversity Beliefs; Ethical Dealing with Minorities; Affective Diversity Aspects; Bias."
## [5001] "Subscales: Geometry content knowledge (GCK); Knowledge of students' van Hiele levels (KSVL); Knowledge of geometry instructional activities (KGIA)."
## [5002] "Subscales: Smell-Taste; Auditory; Vision; Touch."
## [5003] "Factors: Value; Teaching; Participation; Evidence-Based Pedagogy; Role; Clinical Comparison."
## [5004] "Factors: Positive Orientation; Shared Knowledge; Uncertainty."
## [5005] "Subscales: Expectancy for success; Task value; Perceived cost."
## [5006] "Subscales: Personal-Social Beliefs; Interpersonal Beliefs."
## [5007] "Factors: Caregiver Stigma (CS) (Aesthetics; Help and willingness to help; Fear and Shame; Emotions; Distancing); Lay Person Stigma (LS) (Aesthetics and Dangerousness; Distancing; Fear and Shame; Compassion; Cognitive Functioning; Behavioral; Willingness to help; Physical Functioning); Structural Stigma (SS) (Adequacy of Community Services; Adequacy of Health Professionals; Negative Behavior of Health Professionals)."
## [5008] "Subscales: Effort; Evaluation; Tempo; Response; Result."
## [5009] "Subscales: Risk perception; Aggressive behavior; Non-driving activities; Driving tasks; Traffic rules; Driving responsibility; Road condition; Carelessness."
## [5010] "Subscales: Mental/emotional state; Behavioral regulation: anthropometrics; Behavioral regulation: diet quality; Health identity; Perception; Behavioral regulation: habits; Knowledge; Reinforcement; Resources; Functional status."
## [5011] "Factors: Organizational support; Social Norms; HSE attitudes; Self-efficacy; Organization Citizenship Behavior for Environment and Organization Citizenship Behavior for Health and Safety."
## [5012] "Subscales: Economic rewards (ER); Degree of authority (DA); Freedom of Action (FA); Education required (EDU); Academic ability required (AA)."
## [5013] "Factors: PCQ-F: Climate of safety; Climate of Hospitality; Climate of Everydayness."
## [5014] "Factors: Effective role play; Fatigue and surrender; Trust; Uncertainty; Caring ignorance."
## [5015] "Subscales: Teaching practices-autonomy support; Teaching practices-structure; Student sense of competence; Student task value; Student behavioral engagement-misbehavior; Student behavioral engagement-participation; Student behavioral engagement-compliance."
## [5016] "Factors: Complex movement patterns; Basic movement patterns; Oral-motor coordination; Fundamental oral-motor skills."
## [5017] "Factors: Sense of Permanent and Disturbing Change since the Trauma (CPTCI-PC); Sense of Being a Fragile Person in a Scary World (CPTCI-SW)."
## [5018] "Factors: Decent work; Workplace democracy; Sustainable career climate."
## [5019] "Factors: Supporting Presence; Practical Support."
## [5020] "Subscales: Rupture and Collaboration Processes (IVAT-P); Direct Rupture Markers (MD); Indirect Disruption Markers (MI); Collaborative Processes (PC); Therapist's Positive and Negative Contributions (IVAT-T); Resolution Interventions (IR); Negative Interventions (IN)."
## [5021] "Subscales: Self-Kindness (SK); Self-Judgement (SJ); Common Humanity (CH); Isolation (IS); Mindfulness (MI); Overidentification (OI)."
## [5022] "Factors: Persuasive bullshitting; Evasive bullshitting."
## [5023] "Factors: Spontaneity; Creative Cognitive Style; Creative Engagement; Tolerance; Fantasy."
## [5024] "Scales: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence."
## [5025] "Subscales: Adequate coping strategies; Aggressiveness externalization; Pessimism; Paralyzation."
## [5026] "Factors: Two Factor Model (Locomotor; Ball Skills); One-Factor Model (Gross Motor Development)."
## [5027] "Factors: Interpersonal relationship; Infrastructure; Perceptions of work with vulnerable populations."
## [5028] "Factors: Family Cancer and Health Communication; Perception of Cancer."
## [5029] "Factors: Intention; Attitude; Global Social Norms; Injunctive Norms; Descriptive Norms"
## [5030] "Factors: Frequent change and events; Uncertain work demands"
## [5031] "Factors: Relational and Personal Concern; Contentment; Communication; Compatibility."
## [5032] "Subscales: Motor impairment; Intellectual impairment; Emotional impairment; Behavioral symptoms."
## [5033] "Factors: Affective; Behavioral."
## [5034] "Factors: Well-being; Self-control; Emotionality; Sociability; Global trait EI."
## [5035] "Subscales: Controllability of Events; Comprehensibility and Predictability of People; Trustworthiness and Goodness of People; Safety and Vulnerability."
## [5036] "Factors: Discrepancy; Standards."
## [5037] "Subscales: Professional Nursing Organizations; Health Care Delivery Systems: Organizations that Deliver Health Care Services; Governance Levels: City/Town, State, National, Global; Valuing Health and Policy; Influence Skills. Factors: Contributions to policy positions or practice guidelines; Engagement in health policy within the health care delivery system (one's organization of employment); Sharing information and discussing health policy; Familiarity with health problems, policy processes, and policy decision-makers; Professional expectations for nursing regarding health policy; Voter participation; Mindset and involvement in collaborative efforts to improve health."
## [5038] "Subscales: Communal affordance; Embeddedness; Environment pleasantness; Time outdoors."
## [5039] "Subscales: Occupational expertise; Labor market knowledge; Soft skills; Career involvement; Career confidence; Career clarity; Social support from school; Social support from family; Social support from peers; Networking; Career exploration; Self-exploration. Factors: Knowledge and skills; Motivation; Environment; Activities."
## [5040] "Subscales: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence; Cooperation."
## [5041] "Factors: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence; Cooperation"
## [5042] "Subscales: Primary or basic needs/necessities; Neighborhood changes and moving; Identity and place attachment; Community value; Services and resources."
## [5043] "Subscales: Attitudes (ATT); Subjective norm (SN); Perceived behavioral control (PBC); Trust; Experience satisfaction (ES); Behavioral intention to use AV (BI)."
## [5044] "Subscales: Stigma; Normalisierung/Glorifizierung (Normalization/Glorification); Isolation/Depression."
## [5045] "Subscales: Crystallizing; Exploring; Deciding; Preparing."
## [5046] "Subscales: Implicit Positive Affect; Implicit Negative Affect."
## [5047] "Factors: Critical situations (If-part) with focus on seizing opportunities; Critical situations (If-part) with focus on overcoming obstacles; Goal-directed behaviors (Then-part) with focus on seizing opportunities; Goal-directed behaviors (Then-part) with focus on overcoming obstacles."
## [5048] "Subscales: Hostile Classism (HC); Protective Paternalism (PP); Complementary Class Differentiation (CCD)."
## [5049] "Subscales: All-or-nothing behaviour; Limiting behaviour; Practical support seeking; Emotional support seeking."
## [5050] "Factors: Reference: Persecution."
## [5051] "Subscales: Fatigue; Limiting behavior; Social support; Overexertion."
## [5052] "Factors: Ideas of Reference (IR); Ideas of Persecution (IP)."
## [5053] "Subscales: Certainty about mental states (RFQc); Uncertainty about mental states (RFQu)"
## [5054] "Factors: Connection; Risk; Conflict."
## [5055] "Subscales: Demands; Control; Managerial Support; Peer Support; Relationships; Role; Change."
## [5056] "Factors: Attitude; Subjective norm friends; Subjective norm parents; Prototype favorability; Prototype similarity; Willingness; Intention; Behavior."
## [5057] "Subscales: Autonomy satisfaction; Autonomy frustration; Competence satisfaction; Competence frustration; Relatedness satisfaction; Relatedness frustration."
## [5058] "Subscales: Comfort talking with partner; Choice of partners, marriage, and children; Parental support; Sexual safety; Self-love; Sense of future; Sexual pleasure."
## [5059] "Subscales: Neurotic; Anti-social."
## [5060] "Factors: Self-Kindness (SK); Common Humanity (CH); Mindfulness (M); Self-Judgment (SJ); Isolation (IS); Overidentification (OI)."
## [5061] "Subscales: Experiential Attitudes; Instrumental Attitudes; Cognitive Engagement; Behavioral Engagement."
## [5062] "Factors: Self-concept; Life satisfaction; Resilience."
## [5063] "Subscales: Low cognitive demand; High cognitive demand."
## [5064] "Subscales: Guilt And Anxiety Induction; Love Manipulation; Invalidating Feelings And Perspectives; Constraining Verbal Expressions And Behavioral Intention; Erratic Emotional Behavior; Personal Attacks and Shaming; Intrusive Control; Use of Threats."
## [5065] "Factors: Circumscribed interest; Social communication. Subdomains: Social relatedness; Circumscribed interests; Sensory-motor."
## [5066] "Factors: Obsessions; Compulsions."
## [5067] "Subscales: Exploration; Resolution; Affirmation."
## [5068] "Factors: Healthcare team/physician; Family/friends; Media/policy; Organizations; Personal; Neighborhood/community."
## [5069] "Subscales: Personal; Family and Friends; Health Care Team; Neighborhood; Community Organizations; Worksite; Health Information-Media."
## [5070] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation; Integrated regulation; Identified regulation; Introjected regulation; External regulation; Amotivation."
## [5071] "Subscales: Joyous Exploration; Deprivation Sensitivity; Stress Tolerance; Thrill Seeking; Overt Social Curiosity; Covert Social Curiosity."
## [5072] "Subscales: Structures, functions and activities influencing the meal; Environmental factors influencing the meal; Swallowing safety during the meal; Swallowing efficacy during the meal."
## [5073] "Factors: value reorientation; esteem restoration"
## [5074] "Domains: Substance use; School; Work; Family; Social relationships; Justice; Mental health."
## [5075] "Factors: Recognition of positive emotions; Expression of positive emotions; Emotional control; Suppression; Cognitive change; Physical reactions; Recognition of negative emotions; Difficulty to regulate."
## [5076] "Factors: Consistency (Global Grit-consistency, GG-C; Political Grit-consistency, PG-C); Perseverance (Global Grit-perseverance, GG-P; Political Grit-perseverance, PG-P)."
## [5077] "Factors: Coaching; Non-Involvement; Dysfunction; Dismissing."
## [5078] "Factors: Customer Delight Service Control System; Expected Competencies for Customer Delight; Shared Values for Customer Delight; Employee Empowerment for Customer Delight; Expected Norms for Customer Delight; Superior Service Environment; Customer Delight Competencies Development; Customer Delight Service Scripting."
## [5079] "Subscales: Good; Safe; Enticing; Alive; About Me; Abundant; Acceptable; Beautiful; Changing; Cooperative; Funny; Harmless; Hierarchical; Improvable; Intentional; Interconnected; Interesting; Just; Meaningful; Needs Me; Pleasurable; Progressing; Regenerative; Stable; Understandable; Worth Exploring."
## [5080] "Factors: Good (Primary Primal); Safe; Enticing; Alive (Original Secondary Primals); Empowering; Communal; Fluid (Secondary Primals)."
## [5081] "Domains: Other's approval; Appearance; Competition; Family support; Virtue; God's love; Work competence"
## [5082] "Subscales: Combustible; Edible; Vaporized."
## [5083] "Subscales: Social network; Income; Public service; Physical; Technology; Political orientation."
## [5084] "Subscales: Risk-Factor Awareness (RFA); External Support Awareness (ESA)."
## [5085] "Subscales: Basic Knowledge; Attitude; Intended Behavior. Factors (Basic Knowledge): Financial Knowledge and Abilities; Financial Behavior and Experiences."
## [5086] "Subscales: Transcendent guiding force (TGF); Sense and meaning and value-driven behavior (SMVB); Identification and person-environment-fit (IP)."
## [5087] "Subscales: Cultural Presentation Appropriateness; Language Appropriateness; Appealing to the White Ideal."
## [5088] "Measurement Scales: Internal Networking (IN); Knowledge Transfer (KT); Knowledge Absorptive Capacity (KA); Innovation Ambidexterity (AMBIDEX)."
## [5089] "Scales: Effectual Control Orientation; Effectual Affordable Loss Orientation; Effectual Contingency Orientation; Effectual Means Orientation; Effectual Partnership Orientation; Market-based Innovation Barriers; Innovation Performance."
## [5090] "Factors: Participative Actions; Leadership Actions."
## [5091] "Subscales: Trust; Expertise; Predictability; Human-likeness; Ease of use; Risk; Reputation; Propensity to trust technology."
## [5092] "Factors: Habit and Negative Affect Reduction; Pleasure and Stimulation."
## [5093] "Factors: Closeness and Empathy; Teaching and Respect; Teacher Gender; Character, Demand and Experience."
## [5094] "Domains: Transition Planning; Transition Assessment; Types of Skills They Provide for Students During School; Currently Implemented Transition Practices; Partnerships and Collaboration Between Schools and Business."
## [5095] "Categories: Responsiveness; Insensitivity."
## [5096] "Subscales: Daily Uplifts Scale: Frequency; Daily Uplifts Scale: Intensity; Daily Hassles Scale: Frequency; Daily Hassles Scale: Intensity. Factors: Conflicts and unpleasant interactions; Time management and task-related hassles; Threats to self-efficacy and performance; Failures interruptions and annoyances; Organizational and leader-related hassles; Achievement recognition and task-related uplifts; Pleasant interactions helpfulness and compliments; Humor and communication; Time management and customer-related uplifts; Organizational uplifts."
## [5097] "Factors: Self-suppression (6 items); Self-expansion (5 items)."
## [5098] "Factors: Overt Social/Relational threat (O-SR); Covert Social/Relational threat (C-SR); Overt General threat (O-G); Covert General threat – Active (C-GA); Covert General threat – Passive (C-GP)"
## [5099] "Factors: Knowledge of where to seek information (SI); Knowledge of self-treatment (ST); Ability to recognize disorders (AR); Attitudes that promote recognition or appropriate help-seeking behavior (A); Knowledge of risk factors and causes (RF); Knowledge of professional help available (PH)."
## [5100] "Factors: Proactive personality; Perceived strengths use; Perceived organizational support; Routine disruption; Physical exposure; Job performance (Bonus); Withdrawal behaviors; Resilience; Thriving."
## [5101] "Factors: Impact and Satisfaction; Severity."
## [5102] "Factors: Direct Experiences (Performance Accomplishment (PA); Verbal Persuasion (VP); Physical Arousal (PhA)); Vicarious Learning (VL)."
## [5103] "Factors: Injustice (IN); Hostility (H); Behavioural responses (BR); Malicious feelings (MF); Malicious actions tendencies (MAT)"
## [5104] "Subtests/Tasks: Questionnaire about the awareness of difficulties; Conversational discourse; Metaphor interpretation- Explanations; Unconstrained verbal fluency; Emotional prosody; Narrative discourse; Indirect speech acts interpretation; Reading; Writing."
## [5105] "Tests: Lexical Selection; Semantic Categorization; Grammatical Structures I; Grammatical Judgment; Expository Comprehension; Narrative Comprehension (Collective tests); Word Reading; Pseudoword Reading; Grammatical Structures II; Punctuation Marks; Reading comprehension I; Reading Comprehension II; Oral comprehension (Individual version tests)."
## [5106] "Factors: Catastrophize; Negative Secondary; Attuned; Distracted."
## [5107] "Factors: Coparenting agreement; Coparenting closeness; Exposure to conflict; Coparenting support; Coparenting undermining; Endorsement of partner’s parenting; Division of labor."
## [5108] "Factors: Anxiety; Avoidance; Security."
## [5109] "Factors: Warmth; Competence."
## [5110] "Factors: Parental blame; Child characteristics and causes of the disorder."
## [5111] "Subscales: Preference for Intuition in Eating Decision-making; Preference for Deliberation in Eating Decision-making."
## [5112] "Subscales: Civic values (CV); Self-efficacy (SE); Involvement (IV); Civic engagement (CE); Electoral participation (EP); Political militancy (PM); Extra-parliamentary activism (EA)."
## [5113] "Subscales: Challenging the Binary; Social Construction; Theoretical Awareness; Gender Fluidity."
## [5114] "Subscales: Current life satisfaction; Life satisfaction in the recent month; Marital liberalization in the recent month; Religiosity in the previous year."
## [5115] "Domains: Control of Physical Activity; Control of Screen Media; Explicit Modeling; Implicit Modeling; Perceived Barriers and Facilitators. Scales: Weather-related restriction of outdoor play; Restriction of active play indoors; Use of physical activity as a bribe; Perceived influence on physical activity; Limits on and supervision of screen media; Monitoring and use of TV as a threat or bribe; Monitoring and use of video games as a threat or bribe; Use of computers as a threat or bribe; Negotiation of screen media rules; Perceived influence on screen media use; Co-participation in physical activity; Encouragement for outside play; Facilitation of sports and lessons; Encouragement and education to reduce screen media; Co-viewing TV; Co-use of video games and computer; Context-driven permissiveness for screen media; Value of parent physical activity; Value of child sports; Value of child physical activity; Health benefits of child physical activity; Value of TV for parent; Value of child screen media; Entertainment and education benefits of child screen media; Child preference for inactivity; Lack of support for physical activity from adults; Lack of self-efficacy for limiting screen media; Permissiveness for TV viewing by other adults; Permissiveness for screen media by other adults; Enforcement of screen media rules by other adults; Weather-related barriers to physical activity; Family consistency in beliefs about screen media."
## [5116] "Factors: Cognitive (C); Social-Communication (SC); Emotional (E)."
## [5117] "Factors: Health status; Mental resilience; Social adaptation; Disaster response capacity."
## [5118] "Factors: Person-Organization supplementary fit; Person-Organization complementary fit; Person-Job supplementary fit"
## [5119] "Factors: Attitude toward luxury brands; Product fit; Brand fit; Acceptance of High-tech products; Affect; Cognition; Recommendation to buy."
## [5120] "Subscales: Skills; Knowledge; Attitudes."
## [5121] "Dimensions: Basic skills; Thinking Skills; Personal Qualities; Dangerousness (Employer Concerns and Rehabilitation/recidivism)."
## [5122] "Factors: eMpowerment (M); Success (S); Interest (I); Caring (C); Usefulness (U)."
## [5123] "Factors: Encouragement; Control; Discouragement."
## [5124] "Factors: Prosocial Organizational Behavior; Role-Prescribed Prosocial Behavior; Prosocial Individual Behavior."
## [5125] "Subscales: Prosocial Organizational Behaviors; Role-Prescribed Prosocial Behaviors; Prosocial Individual Behaviors."
## [5126] "Factors (Subscales): Perceived Causes of Homelessness (Structural; Intrinsic; Health Causes); Role of Federal Government; Effectiveness of Policies (Financial; Mental Health-Related Policies); Compassion for Homeless Individuals; Legal Restrictions and Rights; Personal Attitudes and Beliefs (Trustworthiness/Dangerousness; Effect of Homelessness on Communities; Capabilities of Homeless People)."
## [5127] "Subscales: Corporal Dissatisfaction; Concern about Weight."
## [5128] "Factors: Positive Reinforcement; Negative Reinforcement; Appetite/Weight Control; Negative Consequences."
## [5129] "Domains: Hand skills without interacting with objects; Arm–hand use; Adaptive skilled hand use; Bimanual use; General quality."
## [5130] "Subscales: Genuine Relationships; Sense of Purpose; Engaged Citizenship; Mental Health; Physical Health."
## [5131] "Subscales: Leisure; School; Daily living."
## [5132] "Subscales: Leisure and play domain; School/education domain; Activity of daily living domain."
## [5133] "Factors: Cognitive experiences (CE); Behavioral experiences (BE); Emotional experiences (EE)."
## [5134] "Subscales: Experiential Engagement; Behavioral Engagement."
## [5135] "Factors: Interdependence (INT); Newly Created Professional Activities (PROF); Professional Flexibility (FLEX); Collective Ownership (COL); Reflection on Process (REF)."
## [5136] "Factors: Anticholinergic side effects; Cholinergic side effects; Antihistaminergic side effects; Orthostatic hypotension side effects; Hyperprolactinemic/sexual side effects; Galactorrhea; Extrapyramidal system/movement."
## [5137] "Factors: Knowledge; Skills; Identity; Capability beliefs; Optimism; Consequence beliefs; Reinforcement; Goals; Memory; Safety climate (Organizational level); Safety climate (Group level); Social Influences; Emotions."
## [5138] "Factors: Conflict Frequency; Positive Response to Conflict; Negative Response to Conflict."
## [5139] "Factors: Emotional Fear Reactions; Symptomatic Expressions."
## [5140] "Subscales: Technique; Energy imagery."
## [5141] "Factors: Mastery-oriented behaviors (MO); Helpless-oriented behaviors (HO)."
## [5142] "Subscales: External adaptation; Internal integration."
## [5143] "Subscales: Design; Follow-Up; Evaluation."
## [5144] "Constructs: academic workload; separation from school; fears of contagion; perceived stress; health"
## [5145] "Subscales: Regulating Attention, Impulsivity, and Activity; Cooperating; Expressing Emotion; Responding to Change; Eating; Sleeping."
## [5146] "Subscales: Cooperating; Expressing emotion; Responding to change; Eating; Sleeping."
## [5147] "Subscales: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); Oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD); Conduct disorder (CD); Separation anxiety disorder (SAD); Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); Major depressive disorder (MDD)."
## [5148] "Externalizing scales: Regulating Attention, Impulsivity, and Activity; Cooperating; Regulating Conduct. Internalizing scales: Separating from Parents; Managing Anxiety; Managing Social Anxiety; Regulating Compulsive Behavior; Managing Mood. Regulating scales: Eating; Sleeping."
## [5149] "Factors: Salience-Tolerance; Mood Modification; Withdrawal; Conflict; Relapse."
## [5150] "Subscales: Motor control; Executive functions; Perception; Memory; Language; Learning; Social skills; Emotional/behavioral problems."
## [5151] "Factors: Emotional exhaustion (EX); Cynicism (CY); Reduced professional efficacy (REF)/Reduced experience of effectiveness (RW)."
## [5152] "General domains: motor skills; executive functioning; perception; memory; language; learning; social skills; emotional/behavioral problems."
## [5153] "Domains: Physical functioning; Daily life; Psychological well-being; Social life and relationships."
## [5154] "Domains: Physical; Cognitive."
## [5155] "Subscales: Space Management; Material Management; Imitation; Participation."
## [5156] "Dimensions: Space management; Material management; Pretence/symbolism; Participation."
## [5157] "Factors: Parent's attitude toward music involvement with child; Parental concert attendance; Parent/child ownership and use of record/tape player, records, tapes; Parent plays a musical instrument."
## [5158] "Subscales: Language Curiosity as a Feeling of Interest (LCFI); Language Curiosity as a Feeling of Deprivation (LCFD)."
## [5159] "Subscales: Nature of Suffering (NOSi) Experiences; Extent of Suffering (EOSi) Experiences."
## [5160] "Factors: PIPS-Causes; PIPS-Mother; PIPS-Baby."
## [5161] "Subscales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [5162] "Factors: Self focus; Relationship focus; Offender focus."
## [5163] "Subscales: Anhedonia; Distress; Asociality; Avolition; Blunted affect; Alogia."
## [5164] "Factors: Consumer Engagement (CE); Customer Trust (CT); Customer Satisfaction (CS); Customer Commitment (COM); Customer Loyalty (CL)."
## [5165] "Subscales: Disgust Propensity; Disgust Sensitivity."
## [5166] "Subscales: Psychological; Echo-coprophenomena; Social; Cognitive; Physical and activities of daily living; Obsessive-compulsive."
## [5167] "Subscales: Structural Barriers; Pregnancy-Decision Making; Lack of Autonomy; Others' Reactions."
## [5168] "Factors: Social identification; Group efficacy; Perceived instability; Legitimacy of collective action."
## [5169] "Factors: My home is my castle; My home is my prison; My Home is my social hub."
## [5170] "Subscales: Cognitive; Psychomotor; Affective-attitudinal. Factors: Knowledge about educational resources and techniques; Knowledge about health education; Knowledge about health; Educational skills; Personal/social skills."
## [5171] "Subscales: Appreciative encounters and interactions with older people; Medication for older people; Nutrition for older people; Safe living environment for older people; Supporting the functioning of older people; End-of-life care; Developing one's competencies; Supporting an older person's mental well-being; Supporting an older person's sexuality; Guiding self-care among older people; Responding to challenging situations."
## [5172] "Subscales: Pouching system change; Emotional management; Role management."
## [5173] "Variables: Korean Dance of BTS; Purchase of Korean cultural products; Tourism behavior intention."
## [5174] "Factors: Access and Use; Design and Structure; Content Adequacy; Value as an Aid to Learning."
## [5175] "Factors: Emotional distress; Auditory perceptual difficulties; Intrusiveness."
## [5176] "Subscales: Memory belief efficacy; Self-care efficacy; Future planning efficacy."
## [5177] "Factors: Anxiety; Depression."
## [5178] "Factors: Credibility; Expectancy."
## [5179] "Constructs: Self-Efficacy; Locus of Control; Outcome Expectations; Social Environment; Health Knowledge/Knowledge of Recommendations; Health Practices/Plans."
## [5180] "Domains: Affective; Cognitive. Factors: Comfort; Activity; Legibility; Enclosure; Complexity; Crime Potential; Wildlife; Lighting."
## [5181] "Subscales: Changes in the appraisal of caregiving resources; Changes in the health belief as a caregiver."
## [5182] "Factors: Challenges; Dissatisfaction."
## [5183] "Subscales: Subjective deployment exposures; Objective deployment exposures; Human death and degradation deployment exposures; Environmental deployment exposures."
## [5184] "Subscales: Sense of Self; Emotional Regulation; Flexibility; Social Behaviour."
## [5185] "Subscales: Stimulating sense of self; Supporting emotion regulation; Stimulating flexibility; Supporting social behavior."
## [5186] "Factors: Brand attribute associations; Emotional brand relationship (E-CBR); Perceived fit; Intention to purchase the brand extension"
## [5187] "Factors: Involvement in luxury products; Nostalgia; Convenience orientation; Health involvement; Involvement in traditional food (TFP); Perceived uniqueness ordinary clipfish (Model 1); Perceived uniqueness ordinary clipfish (Model 2); Intention to consume ordinary clipfish (Model 1); Intention to consume ordinary clipfish (Model 2)."
## [5188] "Component Factors: Childhood/Adolescent Touch Experience (CATE); Comfort with Interpersonal Touch (CoT); Fondness for Interpersonal Touch (FoT); Adult Touch Experience"
## [5189] "Subscales: Cultural Awareness (NCCS-CA-P); Cultural Knowledge (NCCS-CK-P); Cultural Sensitivity (NCCS-CSe-P); Cultural Skills (NCCS-CS-P)."
## [5190] "Factors: Autonomy; Psychosocial/Societal functioning; Cognitive functioning; Financial issues; Interpersonal relationships/Leisure time."
## [5191] "Factors: Feeding on demand (DEM); Using food to calm (FC); Persuasive feeding (PERS); Parent-led feeding (PARENT); Family Meal Environment (FM); Using (non-) food rewards (REW)."
## [5192] "Factors: Feeding on Demand (DEM); Using Food to Calm (FC); Persuasive Feeding (PERS); Parent-Led Feeding (PARENT)."
## [5193] "Factors: Compensatory health beliefs - Eating; Compensatory health beliefs - Physical activity."
## [5194] "Subscales: Teamwork; Goal setting; Social skills; Problem solving and decision making; Emotional skills; Leadership; Time management; Interpersonal communication skills."
## [5195] "Subscales: Student-teacher relationship; Behavioral disengagement; Psychological engagement; Academic and cognitive engagement; Self-efficacy; Economic stress; Positive peer influence; Negative peer influence; Goal setting and problem solving."
## [5196] "Components (Factors): Psychological Empowerment (Self-Worth; Self-Perceived Capabilities); Goal-Oriented Pathways (Self-Motivation; Utilization of Skills and Resources; Goal Orientation)."
## [5197] "Subscales: Autonomy and self-determination; Financial security and responsibility; Family and self well-being; Basic assets for community well-being."
## [5198] "Subscales: Presence of educational best practices – Active learning; Collaboration; Learning diversity; High expectation; Importance of best practices embedded in simulation – Active learning; Collaboration; Learning diversity; High expectation."
## [5199] "Factors: Positive Activation (PA); Negative Activation (NA)."
## [5200] "Subscales: Customer civility; Interpersonal trust; Property experience; Platform governance."
## [5201] "Scales (Subscales): Fear; Avoidance. Being observed by others; Public speaking; Social interaction; Potential contagion."
## [5202] "Subscales: Explicit negative messages about aging; Positive role models; Negative role models; Intergenerational accommodation; Intergenerational nonaccommodation."
## [5203] "Factors: Self-categorization/Teasing; Collusion in Communication; Expressing Optimism; Planning for Future Care Needs; Resisting Anti-Aging Media Messages; Using Technology."
## [5204] "Factors: Other Drivers; Self; Vehicle/Environment; Fate."
## [5205] "Factors: Deleterious Self-Directed Humor; Benign Self-Directed Humor."
## [5206] "Subscales: Approval-Demandingness (Ap-DEM); Perfectionism-Demandingness (Pe-DEM); Comfort-Demandingness (Co-DEM); Approval-Awfulizing (Ap-AWF); Perfectionism-Awfulizing (Pe-AWF); Comfort-Awfulizing (Co-AWF); Approval-Frustration Intolerance (Ap-FI); Perfectionism-Frustration Intolerance (Pe-FI); Comfort-Frustration Intolerance (Co-FI); Approval-Condemnation (Ap-CON); Perfectionism-Condemnation (Pe-CON); Comfort-Condemnation (Co-CON)."
## [5207] "Subscales: Personal welfare; Happiness and satisfaction with life; Satisfaction with life; Satisfaction with public goods and services."
## [5208] "Factors: Unidimensional (single-factor: power fluctuation)"
## [5209] "Implicit Theory of Mind tests: white lie detection; intention inferencing; facial affect interpretation; vocal affect interpretation; false-belief detection"
## [5210] "Subscales: Collaborative norms; Consumer-peer interaction; Relationship commitment; Privacy control; Privacy risk; Brand value Co-creation; Trust."
## [5211] "Subscales: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [5212] "Factors: First Contact; Longitudinality; Coordination; Comprehensiveness (Services Available); Comprehensiveness (Services Provided); Community Orientation."
## [5213] "Factors: Anxious attachment at work coefficient; Avoidant attachment at work."
## [5214] "Domains (Factors): Self (Self-control; Emotion control; Frustration tolerance; Self-Direction; Stable self-image; Responsibility; Reliability; Aggressive control; Purposefulness; Self-esteem); Interpersonal (Long-term relationships; Cooperation; Intimacy; A sense of recognition; Enjoyment; Respect)."
## [5215] "Factors: Negative affect (Neg_af); Alienation (Odv); Antagonism (Ant); Disinhibition (Dez); Psychoticism (Psi)."
## [5216] "Factors: Victimization by direct assault; Control/follow-up victimization; Perpetration of direct assault; Perpetration of control/monitoring."
## [5217] "Factors: Treatment Adherence; Health Maintenance Efficacy; Self-Stigma; Coping with Stigma."
## [5218] "Subscales: Welcoming and meeting culture; Various and respectful communication; Educational cooperation; Parent participation."
## [5219] "Domains: Salience; Tolerance; Mood modification; Withdrawal; Relapse; Conflict; Problems."
## [5220] "Factors: Appearance orientation; Appearance evaluation; Overweight preoccupation; Self-classified weight; Body areas satisfaction."
## [5221] "Subscales: Expectations; Values; Leadership; Education and training; Rewards; Policy; Quality improvement."
## [5222] "Dimensions: Social Phobia (SP); Generalized Anxiety (GA); Separation Anxiety (SA)."
## [5223] "Subscales: White Beauty Conformity (WBC); Bicultural Shift (BS); Asian Language/Culture Avoidance (AL/CA)."
## [5224] "Composite Domains (Domains): Physical (Symptoms; Function; Social Activities); Social (Feelings; Cognition; Social Skills)."
## [5225] "Factors: Anti-Muslim Prejudice; Anti-Islam Sentiment; Conspiracy Beliefs."
## [5226] "Factors: Work-related thought; Work-to-home conversation; Task spillover; Superior-subordinate communication."
## [5227] "Subscales: Attitudes; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioural control; Sedation orders and goals; Sedation practices."
## [5228] "Factors: Cognitive-emotional impairment; Functional impairment; Behavioral engagement; Experience of climate change."
## [5229] "Subscales (Subtasks): Recognition memory task; Match-to-sample sorting task."
## [5230] "Factors: Organization climate; Teamwork climate; Stress recognition; Ambulatory process of care; Perceptions of workload."
## [5231] "Subscales: Awareness of consequences (AC); Ascription of responsibility (AR); Community attachment (CA); Anticipated negative emotion (ANE); Personal norm (PN); Self-managing behavior (SMB); Other-managing behavior (OMB)."
## [5232] "Factors: RMC Knowledge: Giving emotional support; RMC Knowledge: Providing safe care; RMC Knowledge: Preventing mistreatment; RMC Practice: Giving emotional support; RMC Practice: Providing safe care; RMC Practice: Preventing mistreatment."
## [5233] "Factors: Ego Resilience (ER); Optimal Regulation (OR); Openness to Life Experience (OL)."
## [5234] "Factors: PPE Self; PPE Others."
## [5235] "Factors: Eating Alone Attitudes (Enjoyable eating alone; Eating alone as a daily routine; Self-conscious eating alone; Eating alone for freedom; Choose what I want; Efficient eating alone; Lonely eating alone; Solo dining)."
## [5236] "Factors: Teaching and learning environment; Approaches to learning; Generic skills; Self-efficacy beliefs; Study workload stress; Teaching for understanding & encouraging learning; Peer support; Alignment & constructive feedback; Deep and organized approach; Surface approach."
## [5237] "Factors: Primary Appraisal; Secondary Appraisal."
## [5238] "Factors: Empowerment of children's sociality; Optimization of children's environment."
## [5239] "Scales: Non-verbal cognition; Language. Subscales: Vocabulary; Sentence complexity; Language skills."
## [5240] "General Factor: L2 Class Anxiety (LCA). Subscales: Reading Activity Anxiety (RAA); Writing Activity Anxiety (WAA); Listening Activity Anxiety (LAA); Speaking Activity Anxiety (SAA); Classroom Testing Anxiety (CTA)."
## [5241] "Subscales: Teacher support for learning (TSL); Study behaviors (SB); Cognitive engagement (COG); Student conduct (SC); Emotional engagement (EMO); Peer support for learning (PSL); Family support for learning (FSL)"
## [5242] "Factors: Relational Bond (N items = 4); Individualized Partnership (N items = 4); Professional Empowerment (N items = 3); Therapeutic Communication (N items = 4)."
## [5243] "Subscales: Position; Reputation; Information"
## [5244] "Factors: Seasonal leader’s qualities; Core influence; Operational influence; Terminal influence."
## [5245] "Factors: Financial capital (FC); Social capital (SC); Intellectual capital (IC); Human capital (HC)."
## [5246] "Factors: Relief from physical and psychological suffering; Playing and learning; Making wonderful memories and fulfilling wishes; Living a normal life; Good relationships with medical staff; Spending time with the family; Minimum medical treatment; A peaceful death in the presence of the family."
## [5247] "Factors (Subdomains): Rehabilitation and mental health counseling (Rehabilitation and mental health counseling theories and techniques; Crisis and trauma counseling; Employment counseling); Employer engagement and job placement (Job placement and job development; Occupational analysis; Demand-side employment); Case management (Health care and disability management; Caseload management; Community resources); Medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability; Research methodology and evidence-based practice; Group and family counseling."
## [5248] "Factors: Workplace Coping; Self-Disclosure."
## [5249] "Factors: Emotional responses and difficulties (with subscales for Knowledge and Memory Attention & Decision Processes); Social opportunity (with subscales for Environmental and Social Influences); Motivation and capability (with subscales for Role & Identity, Beliefs Capability, Beliefs Consequences, and Emotion)."
## [5250] "Subscales: Human communication (HC); Carer perspectives (CP); Empathy (E); Challenging and changing (CC)."
## [5251] "Subscales: Academic/Social Stress; Separation/Discipline Stress"
## [5252] "Factors: Self–efficacy in socially challenging situations; Self–efficacy in personally challenging situations; Self–efficacy in separation situations; Self–efficacy in situations of disengagement from school."
## [5253] "Factors: Positive (Self-kindness; Common humanity; Mindfulness); Negative (Self-judgment; Isolation; Over-identification)."
## [5254] "Factors: Purchasing proactivity; Operational supply risk reduction; Long-term supply continuity; Innovation value; Relationship value."
## [5255] "Factors: Planning; Spontaneity; Creativity; Innovation orientation; Market performance; Financial performance; Formalization; Centralization; Competitive intensity."
## [5256] "Subscales: Performance; Innovation; Competitive environment; Potential absorptive capacity-Acquisition; Potential absorptive capacity-Assimilation; Realized absorptive capacity-Transformation; Realized absorptive capacity-Exploitation."
## [5257] "Subscales: Asset specificity; Behavioral uncertainty; Market orientation capabilities; Differences in channel members' capabilities; Environmental uncertainty; Product standardization in the industry; Degree of dual channels; Degree of indirect channels."
## [5258] "Subscales: Prevention focus; Promotion focus; Trustworthiness; Tacit knowledge transfer; Knowledge leakage. Factors: Security; Oughts; Losses; Gains; Achievement; Ideals; Integrity; Benevolence; Competence; Knowledge leakage risk; Intentional knowledge leakage; Unintentional knowledge leakage."
## [5259] "Constructs: Performance orientation; Learning orientation; Job performance; Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Openness to experience; Emotional stability."
## [5260] "Factors: Relationship commitment; Relationship exploration; Behavioral uncertainty; Environmental uncertainty; Network density; Network centrality; Opportunism; Distributor dependence; Supplier dependence; Relational norms of solidarity; Competitive intensity."
## [5261] "Factors: Perceived parental non-affirmation; Perceived parental acceptance."
## [5262] "Subscales: Support and affirmation; Guilt and loss; Gender concealment; Pride."
## [5263] "Factors: Affective support; Material support; Informational support; Emotional support; Embracing support; Attentional support."
## [5264] "Constructs: Purchase intention; Warm glow; Trust propensity."
## [5265] "Subscales: Convenience of searching online; Lower search cost online; Accessing online reviews; After-sales services (offline); Immediate possession; Touch and feel; Socialization; Sales-staff assistance; Perceived ease of searching online; Perceived usefulness of webrooming; Anticipated regret (choice); Online risk perceptions; E-distrust; Subjective norms; Product involvement; Perceived behavioral control; Attitude toward webrooming behavior; Intention toward webrooming behavior; Webrooming behavior."
## [5266] "Subscales: Meeting Personal Needs; Carer Wellbeing; Carer-patient Relationship; Confidence in the Future; Feeling Supported."
## [5267] "Subscales: Supervisor social support; Interpersonal identification; Perceived organizational prestige; Sales performance."
## [5268] "Factors: Living with Fatigue; Cognition Fatigue; Emotional Fatigue; Physical Fatigue."
## [5269] "Factors: Instillation of Hope; Secure Emotional Expression; Awareness of Emotional Impact; Social Learning."
## [5270] "Subscales: Practices derived from the evidence base (PDEB); Alternative techniques (AT)"
## [5271] "Subscales: Relational deprivation (RD); Emotional pain (EP)."
## [5272] "Subscales: Functional self-efficacy (FnSE); Self-regulatory self-efficacy (Self-RegSE); Exercise self-efficacy (ExSE)."
## [5273] "Subscales: Reduced sense of accomplishment; Emotional and physical exhaustion; Devaluation."
## [5274] "Factors: Need of affection; Fear of dropping out; Fear of loneliness; Attention to others; Worry about the disapproval of others."
## [5275] "Dimensions: Relation to the Institution (RI); Relationships with Colleagues/Peers (RC); Relationships with Preceptors/Superiors (RP)."
## [5276] "Subscales: Prospective IU; Inhibitory IU."
## [5277] "Subscales: Supportive HR practices; Implementation of tailor-made arrangements; Support of employees' commitment; Support of employees' career development."
## [5278] "Subscales: Forethought capability (FOR); Self-regulation capability (SREG); Self-reflection capability (SREF); Vicarious capability (VIC)."
## [5279] "Subscales: Colors; Numbers; Letters; Objects."
## [5280] "Factors: Emotion Expressivity and Asociality (Factor 1); Avolition (Factor 2). Subscales: Asociality; Blunted affect; Alogia; Anhedonia; Avolition; Distress."
## [5281] "Factors: Basic handling; Advanced handling; Adjustment; Aided listening."
## [5282] "Subscales: Athlete Wellbeing; Self-Regulation; Performance Satisfaction; Sport-Related Distress."
## [5283] "Factors: Personal value; Social value; Economic value; Environmental value; Leadership value."
## [5284] "Subscales: Knowledge-Based Risk Identification; Knowledge-Based Risk Examination; Knowledge-Based Risk Sharing; Knowledge-Based Risk Repository; Risk Analysis."
## [5285] "Factors: Supervisory Activities; Supervisee Reactions."
## [5286] "Factors: Informal learning activities using personal sources; Informal learning activities using environmental sources; Formal learning activities."
## [5287] "Subscales: Negative Affect (NA); Interpersonal Relationships (IR); Detachment (De); Antagonism (An); Psychoticism (Ps); Disinhibition (Di)."
## [5288] "Subscales: Perceived susceptibility; Perceived severity; Perceived benefits; Perceived barriers; Cues to action; General health motivation; Self-efficacy."
## [5289] "Factors: Personal Confidence and Hope; Willingness to Ask for Help; Goal and Success Orientation; Reliance on Others; Not Dominated by Symptoms."
## [5290] "Subscales: Analogic reasoning; Cube design; Nonsymbolic memory; Numerical series; Spatial memory; Symbolic memory. Factors: Fluid reasoning; Visual processing; Memory; Quantitative; Reasoning."
## [5291] "Factors: Identity; Traditions; Spirituality."
## [5292] "Subdimensions: Appearance; Weight; Attribution."
## [5293] "Subscales: Food; Physical touch; Outdoors; Positive feedback; Hobbies; Social interactions; Goals"
## [5294] "Subscales: Seeking resources; Seeking challenges; Reducing demands."
## [5295] "Dimensions: Recovery strengths in active addiction; Recovery barriers in active addiction; Recovery strengths in recovery; Recovery barriers in recovery."
## [5296] "Subscales: Competence; Adaptability; Self-esteem."
## [5297] "Factors: Information about the disease; Information about the treatments/medical investigation; Relationships with healthcare teams; Healthcare access; Reception conditions in care centers."
## [5298] "Factors: Rumination; Substance Use; External Threat Monitoring; Thought Suppression; Behavioral Avoidance; Internal Threat Monitoring; Worry."
## [5299] "Subscales: Cognitive avoidance; Behavioral avoidance."
## [5300] "Factors: Credibility before; Ethical attitude before; Credibility after; Ethical attitude After; Moral Equity; Relativism; Utilitarianism."
## [5301] "Subscales: Cultural; Institutional; Personal."
## [5302] "Constructs: Corporate brand Identification; Corporate brand Attractiveness; Corporate brand similarity; Corporate brand distinctiveness; Tuition fees; Metropolitan city brand; Higher education country brand; Campus locale."
## [5303] "Subscales: Critical reflection (CR); Unlearning; Idea generation (IG); Idea realization (IR); Job autonomy; Job intensity (JI); Problem-solving demands (PSD)."
## [5304] "Factors: Positive metacognitions about emotional and cognitive regulation (PM ECR); Negative metacognitions about uncontrollability and cognitive harm of smartphone excessive use (NM UH); Positive metacognitions about the social advantages of smartphone use (PM SR)."
## [5305] "Factors: Destination beliefs; Tourist push motivation; Event satisfaction; Post-visit attitudes toward the event; Product receptivity."
## [5306] "Factors: Perceived Impulsiveness (PI); Cognitive Post Purchase Dissonance (CPPD); Affective Post Purchase Dissonance (APPD); Repurchase Intention (RI)."
## [5307] "Factors: Accepting and Non-attached Attitude towards one’s own eating experience (ANA); Awareness of Senses while Eating (ASE); Eating in Response to awareness of Fullness (ERF); Awareness of eating Triggers and Motives (ATM); Connectedness (CON); Non-Reactive Stance (NRS); Focused Attention on Eating (FAE)."
## [5308] "Subscales: Motor function-Gross motor; Motor function-Distal; Motor function-Axial/proximal; Communication; Family impact; Fatigue."
## [5309] "Domains: Aetiology; Classification and observation; Risk assessment; Prevention; Treatment; Specific patient groups"
## [5310] "Factors: Driving intentions; Subjective norms; Attitudes; Risk perceptions; Perceived behavioral control; Neuroticism; Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Openness."
## [5311] "Scales: Reported behavior; Intended behavior."
## [5312] "Higher-order latent factor: Adaptability"
## [5313] "Subscales: Impersonal orientation; Control orientation; Autonomy orientation."
## [5314] "Subscales: Friendly environment level; Personalized care; Residents' self-realization and relationships; Organizational support; Residents' habits and preferences."
## [5315] "Subscales: Violence as a form of diversion; Violence to improve the self-esteem; Violence to manage socials problems and relationships; Violence perceived as legitimate."
## [5316] "Factors: Violence as a form of fun; Violence as a way to enhance self-esteem; Violence as a way to relate and solve problems; Violence perceived as legitimate."
## [5317] "Constructs: Awareness of consequences was measured with three items adapted from Stefan et al. (2013); Awareness of responsibility was measured with three items adapted from Wang et al. (2018). Subjective norm was measured with 3 items adapted from Ajzen (1991) and Clayton & Griffith (2003); Moral Norm was measured with 3 items adapted from Bamberg et al. (2007) and Klockner (2013). Attitudes toward over-ordering were measured with 3 items adapted from Ajzen (1991); Perceived behavior control was measured with 2 items adjusted from Ajzen (1991); Intention to over-order was measured with 3 items adapted from Ajzen (1991); Ordering habit was measured with 3 items adapted from Verplanken and Orbell (2003); Over-ordering behavior was measured with 1 item adapted from Stefan et al. (2013); Interventions from the Waiter was measured with 1 item developed for the current study."
## [5318] "Factors: Disgust Propensity (DP); Disgust Sensitivity (DS); Self and Ruminative Disgust (SFR)."
## [5319] "Factors: Pragmatic; Critical; Positive."
## [5320] "Subscales: Vigilance; Discrimination/harassment; Gender expression; Parenting; Victimization; Family of origin; Vicarious trauma; Isolation; HIV/AIDS stigma."
## [5321] "Factors: Anxiety; Avoidance; Felt security."
## [5322] "Subscales: Knowledge (Healthy and unhealthy relationships; Dating violence warning signs; Nature of abuse; Dynamics and cycle of abuse; Roles in facilitating or preventing abuse; Contribution of gender roles to abuse; Cycle of violence; Media contributions to violence); Attitude (Acceptance of dating violence; Respect for oneself and others; Self-efficacy for dealing with abuse; Acceptance of gender role stereotypes; Media contribution to violence); Behavioral skills (Ability to identify good and poor communication skills; Confidence in using appropriate conflict resolution; Likelihood of using ineffective aggressive behaviors; Likelihood of using ineffective passive behaviors; Likelihood of using effective behaviors)."
## [5323] "Factors: Picky eating; Appetite; Fear."
## [5324] "Domains: Attachment; Behavioral; Cognitive; Dominance; Emotional; Self."
## [5325] "Subscales: Mistrust; Constraints on closeness; Fear of rejection; Self-reliance; Desire for company; Fear of separation; Anger; Total Insecure Attachment. Factors: Fearful; Angry-Dismissive; Enmesh; Secure; Withdrawn."
## [5326] "Factors: Practice; Know (General; Specific); Patient Motivation; Patient: Expected Outcomes; Setting: Resources; Clinician: Tactics; Clinician: Skills; Clinician: Ethics."
## [5327] "Subscales: Connectedness; Shared Activities; Hostility."
## [5328] "Subscales: Poor functioning at work and at home; Lack of entertainment; Poor social relationships; Cognitive impairments; Addictions; Depressive symptoms; Manic symptoms; Anxiety symptoms; Eating disorder; Sleep problems; Sexual problems; Somatic symptoms."
## [5329] "Factors: Preocupación (Concern); R. Fisiológicas (R. Physiological); Situaciones (Situations); R. Evitación (R. Avoidance)."
## [5330] "Factors: Physiological anxiety; Avoidance behavior; Cognitive."
## [5331] "Subscales: No Reference Group (NRG); Reference Group Dependent (RGD); Reference Group Nondependent- Similarity (RGND-S); Reference Group Nondependent-Diversity (RGND-D)."
## [5332] "Factors: Lifestyle restrictions; Negative emotion; Positive coping."
## [5333] "Factors: Professional confidence in depression care; Therapeutic optimism about depression; Generalist perspective about depression occurrence, recognition, and management."
## [5334] "Factors: Peer Belonging (pBEL); Institutional Belonging (iBEL)."
## [5335] "Factors: Negative-tendency; Negative-efficacy; Positive-tendency; Positive-efficacy."
## [5336] "Subscales: Noticing; Not‐Distracting; Not‐Worrying; Attention Regulation; Emotional Awareness; Self‐Regulation; Body‐Listening; Trusting."
## [5337] "Factors: Noticing; Non-Distracting; Not Worrying; Attention Regulation; Emotional Awareness; Self-Regulation; Body Listening; Trusting."
## [5338] "Factors: Bulletproof Beliefs; Skeptic Beliefs; Jungle Beliefs; Worth it Beliefs."
## [5339] "Factors: School/education/work; Family and close relationships; Relationships with others; Your future; Your feelings; Your appearance; Your leisure time (leisure activities); Your values and beliefs; Thinking and concentration; Your general physical health; Your mental health; Your physical health in relation to the eating disorder."
## [5340] "Factors: Proactive overt aggression; Proactive relational aggression; Reactive overt aggression; Reactive relational aggression."
## [5341] "Subscales: Suppression; Clarity; Repair; Difficulties in defensive repression."
## [5342] "Subscales: Affective organizational commitment (AOC); Continuance organizational commitment COC); Normative organizational commitment (NOC)."
## [5343] "Factors: Community embeddedness culture; Focus on respect culture; Conformity culture; Future orientation culture."
## [5344] "Factors: Maintain close ties; Maintain or strengthen weaker ties; Diversion; Positive affect; Negative affect."
## [5345] "Factors: Effectiveness; Efficiency; Satisfaction."
## [5346] "Factors: Perceived Emotional Stress; Perceived Social Stress; Perceived Financial Stress; Perceived Lack of Resources; Perceived Lack of Social Support; Perceived Physical Stress; Perceived Lack of Knowledge."
## [5347] "Factors: Autotelic Experience; Clear Goals; Challenge–Skill Balance; Concentration on Task; Paradox of Control; Unambiguous Feedback; Action–Awareness Merging; Transformation of Time; Loss of Self-Consciousness."
## [5348] "Factors: Allyship; Cause Connection; Social Change Commitment."
## [5349] "Factors: Government Openness to Protests; Perceived Repression (by police)"
## [5350] "Factors: Avoidance Impact of Event Scale; Personal Relationship Disruption; Risk Perception; Cleanup & Restoration; Adverse Compensation Impacts; Event Experience; Community Involvement."
## [5351] "Factors: Washing (WS); Obsessing (OS); Hoarding (HD); Odering (OR); Checking (CK); Neutralizing (NT)."
## [5352] "Factors: Peer ridicule and avoidance; Paternal blame; Fear of abandonment; Maternal blame; Hope of reunification; Self-blame."
## [5353] "Subscales: Fear of Ridicule/Rejection of equals (MR); Paternal Guilt (CP); Maternal Guilt (CM); Self-blame(AC); Hopes of Reconciliation (ER); Fear of Abandonment (MA); Conflicts of Loyalty (CL)."
## [5354] "Scales (Subscales): Discontinuity (Disc) (Discontinuity in properties and goals; Discontinuity in relationships and roles; Discontinuity in emotional self-reflection); Incoherence (Inkoh) (Incoherence in the self-image; Overidentification/suggestion; Incoherence in cognitive self-reflection)."
## [5355] "Factors: Vigor; Dedication; Absorption."
## [5356] "Subscales: Pain Intensity; Functional Interference; Emotional Response; Side Effects; Perceptions of Care; Usual Pain."
## [5357] "Factors: Mild damage; Severe damage."
## [5358] "Female version factor-structure (CBCBS-F): Face body areas; Body areas related to attractiveness; Body areas related to thinness/excess weight; Concerns with thinness; Desire/behavior related to muscularity. Male version factor-structure (CBCBS-M): Concerns with specific aspects of the body; Concerns and behaviors related to the body."
## [5359] "Factors: Body Acceptance; Body Avoidance; Concerns with Appearance."
## [5360] "Factors: Body Acceptance; Pregnancy Acceptance."
## [5361] "Factors: Meditative training; Respectful discipline; Positive training environment; Streaming; Training behavior; Heavy training; Goal orientation; Physical challenge."
## [5362] "Factors: Autonomy-supportive behaviors; Competence-supportive behaviors; Relatedness-supportive behaviors; Autonomy-thwarting behavior; Competence-thwarting behaviors; Relatedness-thwarting behaviors."
## [5363] "Factors: Information transfer; Family information; Management of follow-up; Management of lifestyle."
## [5364] "Factors: Information transfer to patients; Relationships with providers during hospitalization."
## [5365] "Factors: Crowding; Actual crowding; Hedonic value; Re-patronage intention; Sensation seeking."
## [5366] "Factors: Process and Awareness; Client Skills; Cultural Sensitivity; Intervention; Facilitation."
## [5367] "Subscales: Emotional Difficulties; Cognitive Difficulties; Relational Difficulties; Problematic Behaviors"
## [5368] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation to know; Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation; Intrinsic motivation to accomplish; External regulation; Introjection; Identification (extrinsic motivation); Amotivation."
## [5369] "Factors: Identity-based victimization; Personal victimization."
## [5370] "Factors: Need for recognition; Moral elitism; Lack of empathy; Rumination"
## [5371] "Subscales: General; Physical; Non-Hostility; Collaboration; Affect; Satisfaction."
## [5372] "Subscales: Appreciation; Intellectual Engagement; Fortitude; Interpersonal Consideration; Sincerity; Temperance; Transcendence; Empathy."
## [5373] "Subscales: Idiosyncratic checking (IDSC); Overall appearance (OVAPP); Specific body parts (SBP)."
## [5374] "Subscales: Body control (BODC); Objective evaluation (OBEVAL); Reassurance (REASS); Safety beliefs (SAFEB)."
## [5375] "Subscales: General Traditional Beliefs; Demands; Awfulizing; Low Frustration Tolerance; Negative Self Rating."
## [5376] "Subscales: Irrational-demand; Irrational-awfulizing; Irrational-low frustration tolerance (LFT); Irrational-negative self rating (NSR); Rational-demand; Rational-awfulizing; Rational-LFT; Rational-NSR."
## [5377] "Factors: General irrational beliefs about the traditional female role; Irrational beliefs about the traditional female role in the couple."
## [5378] "Factors: General Functioning (MAFS-GF); Family-Related Functioning (MAFS-FF); Peer-Related Functioning (MAFS-PF)."
## [5379] "Subscales: Positive problem-solving behavior (PPSB); Negative problem-solving behavior (NPSB); Rational problem-solving behavior (RPSB); Impulsivity behavior (IB); Withdrawal style (WS)."
## [5380] "Domains (Facets): Emotion Dysregulation (Stress Reactivity; Frustration Intolerance); Internalizing (Sadness; Self-Uncertainty), Lack of Will (Self- Directedness; Distractibility); Externalizing (Social Deviance; Impulsive Risk-Taking); Scrupulousness (Rigidity; Perfectionism); Fantasy Proneness; Apathy."
## [5381] "Subscales: Positive problem-solving behavior (PPSB); Negative problem-solving behavior (NPSB); Rational problem-solving behavior (RPSB); Impulsive behavior (IB); Avoidance behavior (AB)."
## [5382] "Factors: Well-being; Savoring; Creative-executive effectiveness; Self-regulation; Resilience."
## [5383] "Subscales: Ease of Use; Interface and Satisfaction; Usefulness."
## [5384] "Factors: Ease of use and satisfaction (MAUQ_E); System information arrangement (MAUQ_S); Usefulness (MAUQ_U)."
## [5385] "Subscales: Mood-Related Signs; Behavioral Disturbance; Physical Signs; Cyclic Functions; Ideational Disturbance."
## [5386] "Subscales: Directive Behaviour; Praise and Understanding; Active Involvement; Parental Pressure."
## [5387] "Factors: Auto-positive reinforcement function; Auto-negative reinforcement function; Positive social reinforcement."
## [5388] "Subscales: Eating concern; Shape concern; Weight concern; Restraint."
## [5389] "Subscales: Hyperactivity/inattention; Emotional symptoms; Conduct problems; Peer relationship problems; Prosocial behaviors."
## [5390] "Factors: Personality dysfunction (general factors); Identity Diffusion; Aggression; Reality Testing; Moral Values."
## [5391] "Factors: Disgust Propensity (DP); Disgust Sensitivity (DS)."
## [5392] "Subscales: Picture-naming parameters; Segmental parameters of nonword imitation; Syllabic structure parameters of nonword imitation; Nonword repetition consistency; MRR parameters."
## [5393] "Factors: Personality dysfunction (general factors); Aggression; Reality Testing; Moral Values."
## [5394] "Factors: Dwelling (DWE); Caring (CAR); Revering (REV); Experiencing (EXP); Relating (REL)."
## [5395] "Subscales: Gelotophobia (Pho); Gelotophilia (Phi); Katagelasticism (KAT)."
## [5396] "Subscales: Municipal sports facility (IMD); Sports spaces (ED); Changing rooms (V); Activity program (PA); Teacher-monitor (PM)."
## [5397] "Factors: Interpretation of Difficulty; Identity Salience; Congruence with Group."
## [5398] "Factors: Substance Use and Sedentary Behavior; Poor Diet and Physical Activity; Miscellaneous Behaviors."
## [5399] "Factors: Respectful and Responsible (RR); Managing and Communicating existing and future Work (MCW); Reasoning/Managing Difficult Situations (RDS); Managing the Individual within the Team (MIT)."
## [5400] "Subscales: Affect and Fatigue; Executive and Social Function; Risk Behaviors"
## [5401] "Subscales: Self-engagement (ENG); Service towards others (ST); Self-efficacy (SE); Transcendence (T); Self-awareness (SA)."
## [5402] "Factors: Uninhibited Behavior; Planful Conscientious Behavior; Socially Restrained Behavior."
## [5403] "Factors: Perceived barriers to testing; Perceived benefits of testing; Perceived disease severity; Social concern; Perceived disease susceptibility."
## [5404] "Factors: Psychological impact; Economic impact; Recession and COVID-19; Travel risks; Destination risks; Hospitality risks; Holiday intention."
## [5405] "Factors: Powerlessness/Hypoglycemia; Management/Eating; Physician Distress; Negative Social Perceptions; Friends/Family Distress."
## [5406] "Factors: Powerlessness; Negative Social Perceptions; Physician Distress; Friend/Family Distress; Hypoglycemia Distress; Management Distress; Eating Distress."
## [5407] "Subscales: Financial Partnership; Financial Secrecy; Financial Trust and Disclosure."
## [5408] "Subscales: Internality; Powerful others externality; Chance externality."
## [5409] "Factors: Not being able to access information (Factor 1); Giving up convenience (Factor 2); Not being able to communicate (Factor 3); Losing connectedness (Factor 4)."
## [5410] "Subscales: Situational Cognition; General Cognition; Efficacy Beliefs. Factors: Anticipation; Creativity; Experience; Knowing each other's abilities; Agreement among the players; Agreement on players' positioning; Agreement between coaches and players; Maximizing abilities; Team goals; Balance; Self-efficacy; Other efficacy; Collective efficacy."
## [5411] "Factors: Sexualization of sexual identity (SSI); Intrusive and explicit sexual advances (IESA); Body evaluation (BE)."
## [5412] "Subscales: Prevention-focused ethical leadership; Promotion-focused ethical leadership."
## [5413] "Subscales: Daily Living Routines; Household Responsibilities; Discipline Routines; Homework Routines."
## [5414] "Subscales: Daily living routines; Household responsibilities; Discipline routines; Homework routines."
## [5415] "Factors: Unawareness of South Korean Privilege and Discrimination Against Multicultural Minorities (USKPD); Attitudes Against Multiculturalism (AAM); Attitudes Against Advocacy and Policy for Multicultural Minorities (AAAP)."
## [5416] "Factors: Religious Well-Being (RWB); Existential Well-Being (EWB)."
## [5417] "Factors: Dementia knowledge; Social comfort."
## [5418] "Factors: Supportive attitude; Acceptive attitude; Exclusionary attitude."
## [5419] "Factors: Representations about interpersonal relationships and health problems; Representations about personality and cognitive characteristics; Representations about influence of contextual and family variables on high intellectual capacities; Representations about educational responses; Representations about high performance intellectual capabilities."
## [5420] "Factors: Cannot Rely on Others; Undeserving; Interpersonal Guilt (Aafjes-van Doorn et al., 2021)."
## [5421] "Subscales: Experiential Acceptance; Non-reactivity."
## [5422] "Factors: Internalized Stigma; Enacted Stigma; Anticipated Stigma."
## [5423] "Factors: Negative emotions; Prototypical aesthetic emotions; Epistemic emotions; Animation; Nostalgia/relaxation; Sadness; Amusement. Subscales: Feeling of beauty/liking; Fascination; Being moved; Awe; Enchantment; Nostalgia; Joy; Humor; Vitality; Energy; Relaxation; Surprise; Interest; Intellectual challenge; Insight; Feeling of ugliness; Boredom; Confusion; Anger; Uneasiness; Sadness."
## [5424] "Factors: Craving; Negative Affect; Sleep; Restlessness; Concentration; Hunger."
## [5425] "Factors: Enjoyment, Emotional Flattening, and Detachment (Factor 1); Connection, Purpose, and Enthusiasm (Factor 2); Effort and Motivation (Factor 3)."
## [5426] "Subscales: PSI frequency; PSI variety."
## [5427] "Factors: Rumination; Worry."
## [5428] "Factors: Non-normative subordinate masculinity; Normative subordinate femininity; Normative hegemonic masculinity."
## [5429] "Subscales: Reward for Effort; Reduced Self-Control; Need to Consume; Permission to Consume."
## [5430] "Factors: Intolerance of Uncertainty; Worry; Arousal."
## [5431] "Subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (EM); Job Autonomy (JA); Job Reward (JR); Conflict TCR (C-TCR)."
## [5432] "Subscales: Language/interpretability; Automation; Staffing/access; Requirements."
## [5433] "Factors: Abandonment/instability; Mistrust/abuse; Emotional deprivation; Defectiveness/shame; Social isolation/alienation; Dependence/incompetence; Vulnerability to harm or illness; Enmeshment/undeveloped self; Failure; Entitlement/grandiosity; Insufficient self-control/self-discipline; Subjugation; Self-sacrifice; Approval/recognition seeking; Negativity/pessimism; Emotional inhibition; Unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness; Punitiveness."
## [5434] "Subscales: Related words; Non-related words."
## [5435] "Subscales: Efficacy over life problems; Cultural and Spiritual beliefs; Others Assessment."
## [5436] "Subscale: Survival and Coping Beliefs (SCB); Responsibility to Family (RF); Fear of Social Disapproval (FSD); Moral Objections (MO); Fear of Suicide (FS)."
## [5437] "Subscales: Survival and Coping Beliefs; Responsibility to Family; Child-Related Concerns; Fear of Suicide; Fear of Social Disapproval; Moral Objections."
## [5438] "Factors: Negative affectivity; Detachment; Dissociality; Disinhibition; Anankastia."
## [5439] "Factors: Social maladaptation; Nonsocial maladaptation."
## [5440] "Factors: Emotional Undereating; Emotional Overeating; Hunger; Food Responsiveness; Slowness in Eating; Enjoyment of Food; Food Fussiness; Satiety Responsiveness."
## [5441] "Factors: Concealing; Adjusting; Tolerating"
## [5442] "Factors: Relationship with Managers; Empowerment; Collegiality."
## [5443] "Subscales: Determining education needs; Assessment and planning; Implementation; Evaluation and documentation."
## [5444] "Subscales: Addictive smoking; Pleasure from smoking; Tension reduction/relaxation; Social smoking; Stimulation; Habit/automatism; Handling."
## [5445] "Subscales: Technology-nature; Animals; Train."
## [5446] "Subscales: Physical safety; Psychological comfort."
## [5447] "Subscales: Inability to Learn; Relationship Problems; Inappropriate Behavior; Unhappiness or Depression; Physical Symptoms or Fears."
## [5448] "Subscales: Inability to Learn; Relationship Problems; Inappropriate Behavior; Unhappiness or Depression; Physical Symptoms or Fears; Socially Maladjusted"
## [5449] "Factors: Fear of contagious depression; Tendency to avoid confrontation."
## [5450] "Factors: Gift of Life; Benefits to Self; Negative consequences; Concerns over medical care."
## [5451] "Subscales: Severity/irreparability of loss; Blame/unfairness."
## [5452] "Subscales: Severity/irreparability; Blame/unfairness; Perceived lack of empathy."
## [5453] "Subscales: Severity/irreparability of loss; Blame/unfairness."
## [5454] "Domains: Feeling of safety; Health and mobility; Autonomy; Close entourage; Material resources; Esteem and recognition; Social and cultural life."
## [5455] "Subscales: Affective; Cognitive."
## [5456] "Factors: Perceived program effectiveness; Gambling misconceptions; Perceived company support."
## [5457] "Subscales: Understanding explicit information; Inferencing; Using syntactic knowledge; Using discourse knowledge; Recognizing mood, attitude, purpose, tone (MAPT)."
## [5458] "Factors: Concern about the child's weight; Advanced planning; Family attitude toward fruits and vegetables; Parental resilience—personal competence."
## [5459] "Factors: Short-Form Psychological (S-Psych); Short-Form Physical (S-Phys)."
## [5460] "Factors: Persistent behavior; Stereotyped behavior; Self-injurious behavior; Compulsive behavior."
## [5461] "Factors: Brand addiction; Brand hedonism; Brand self expressiveness; Brand innovativeness; Brand authenticity; Brand exclusiveness; Compulsive buying behaviors (toward the brand); Irritability."
## [5462] "Factors: Attitudinal loyalty; Behavioral loyalty; Perceived value for money (PVFM); Price consciousness; Quality consciousness; Price–quality inference; Perceived quality variability in the category; Attitude toward the retailer; Involvement with organic products."
## [5463] "Factors: Behavior (BEH); Intention (INT); Attitude (ATT); Subjective norms (SN); Perceived health benefits (HB); Perceived sustainability benefits (SB); Perceived price (PP)."
## [5464] "Subscales: Common Agenda; Backbone Support; Continuous Improvement Through Measurement; Investment and Sustainability; Collaborative Action; Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Youth Development Programming."
## [5465] "Factors: Attitude toward automated vehicles; Adoption intention of automated vehicles; Reasons for adopting automated vehicles; Reasons against adopting automated vehicles; Need for uniqueness; Risk aversion; Face consciousness."
## [5466] "Factors: Temporal Disassociation; Focused Immersion; Heightened Enjoyment; Curiosity; Control; User Experience; User Trust; Technology Continuation Intention (first-order constructs); Tech continuation intention; User experience; User trust; Cognitive absorption."
## [5467] "Factors: Perceived usefulness (PU); Perceived ease of use (PEOU); Perceived enjoyment (EN); Social presence (SP); Social cognition (SC); Trust (TR); Attitude (ATT); Intentions to use (INT); Privacy concern (PRV)."
## [5468] "Subscales: Describing thoughts/feelings; Observing sensations; Attentive awareness; Inattention/distraction; Acceptance; Maintaining a broader perspective (self-as-context) in the face of difficult thoughts/feelings; Gently experiencing difficult thoughts/feelings; Experiential avoidance of difficult thoughts/feelings; Judging difficult thoughts/feelings; Getting stuck in difficult thoughts/feelings; Maintaining daily contact with deeper values/priorities; Taking steps toward goals despite difficult thoughts/feelings/experiences; Losing touch with deeper values/priorities; Getting stuck in inaction by difficult thoughts/feelings/experiences."
## [5469] "Subscales: Altruistic value; Biospheric value; Egoistic value; New ecological paradigm (NEP); Awareness of consequences (AC); Ascription of responsibility (AR); Personal integrated norms; Personal introjected norms; Eco-socially conscious consumer behavior (ESCCB); ESCCB-conservation intensions; ESCCB-purchase intensions."
## [5470] "Categories of Questions: General; Knowledge; Experience; Benefit and risk perception; Behavioral assessment; Feelings; Trust."
## [5471] "Survey Factors: Car dependence; Bike enjoyment; Anti-exercise; Risk tolerance"
## [5472] "Subscales: Supernatural beliefs; Positive views of God; Negative views of God; Supportive; Ruling/punishing; Passive."
## [5473] "Factors: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [5474] "Factors: Compassion; Honesty and credibility; Sense of right and wrong; Filial piety and fraternal duty; Gratitude."
## [5475] "Subscales: Conduct; Hyperactivity; Emotional; Peer; Prosocial."
## [5476] "Construes: Addiction; Hedonic benefit; Sense of belonging; Social benefit, Habit; Utilitarian benefit."
## [5477] "Subscales: Distress relief; Communication comfort; Adherence intent; Rapport."
## [5478] "Factors: Recreation; Financial gambling; Financial investment; Social; Health. Subscales: Expected benefits; Risk perception; Likelihood of engagement."
## [5479] "Subscales: Boreout; Career satisfaction; Life satisfaction; Job satisfaction."
## [5480] "Factors: Positive Functioning; Negative Functioning; Human Insecurity; School Domain; Social Domain."
## [5481] "Subscales: Knowledge in Business Management (KBM); Legal Knowledge (LK); Strategic Knowledge (SK)."
## [5482] "Factors: Self-organization; Critical thinking; Understanding context; Socio-political engagement."
## [5483] "Factors: Proactive flexibility; Reactive flexibility."
## [5484] "Subscales: Comparative Disease Risk; Comparative Environmental Risk; Optimistic Bias; Personal Control."
## [5485] "Subscales: Sattva; Rajas; Tamas."
## [5486] "Subscales: Conventional Score; Primary print knowledge; Secondary print knowledge."
## [5487] "Factors: Excessive eating behavior; Time spent eating; Negative emotional consequences; Social impact of healthy eating."
## [5488] "Subscales: Relational practices; Participatory practices."
## [5489] "Subscales: Respect and integrity; Planning and decision making; Information and knowledge; Motivation and encouragement."
## [5490] "Factors: Preservation (PRE); Utilization (UT)."
## [5491] "Subscales: Home Integration; Social Integration; Productivity; Electronic Social Networking."
## [5492] "Factors: Overcommitment; Impatience; Hard-Working; Salience."
## [5493] "Factors: Campus Cultural Fit; Academic Capital; School–Family Integration"
## [5494] "Factors: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence."
## [5495] "Subscales: Continuance use intention; Catching Pokémon; Passing time; Entertainment; Social interaction; Medium appeal; Game knowledge; Game level."
## [5496] "Subscales: Switching intention (SI); Socializing (SO); Enjoyment (EN); System quality of SNSs (SQ); Customer care satisfaction (CSS); Attractiveness of the alternative (AA); Peer influence (PI); Critical mass (CM)."
## [5497] "Factors: Metacognitive Conditional Knowledge; Covert Self-regulation; Environmental Self-regulation"
## [5498] "Subscales: Affordance-Visibility; Affordance-Association; Affordance-Editability; Affordance-Persistence; Ties-Instrumental; Ties-Expressive; Job performance-In-role; Job performance-Innovative."
## [5499] "Factors: Selfie Appearance Investment; Selfie Peer Feedback Concern."
## [5500] "Factors: Salience; Mood Modification; Conflict; Tolerance; Relapse; Withdrawal."
## [5501] "Subscales: Physical victimization; Verbal victimization; Property attacks; Social victimization."
## [5502] "Factors: Lack of belonging; Inauthenticity; Exclusion; Anger; Sadness."
## [5503] "Factor: Need for Cognition."
## [5504] "Factors: Purchase Intention; Motivation to process nutrition and sustainable information; Perception of a healthy and sustainable diet; Attitude to food innovation."
## [5505] "Method Factors: Positively worded items; Negatively worded items."
## [5506] "Subscales: Avoidance of femininity (AF); Self-reliance through mechanical skills (SR); Negativity toward sexual minorities (NT); Toughness (TO); Dominance (DO); Importance of sex (IS); Restrictive emotionality (RE)."
## [5507] "Factors: Speed/degree of escalation combined with intensity; Speed/degree of de-escalation."
## [5508] "Subscales: Diagnosis/Symptoms (D/S); Etiology (ET); Treatment (TR); Stigma (ST)."
## [5509] "Subscales: Physical Functioning; Vitality; Emotional Functioning; Health Perception; Treatment Burden; Upper Respiratory Symptoms; Lower Respiratory Symptoms; Role; Social Functioning; Hearing Symptoms."
## [5510] "Factors: Personal habits (PH); Manner with others (MO); Sort of person (SP); Personal ability (PA); Doing something wrong (DSW); Saying something stupid (SSS); Failing competitively (FC); Body (BD)."
## [5511] "Subscales: Physical; Cognitive; Social; Emotional."
## [5512] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression."
## [5513] "Subscales: Decreased Food Appeal scale; Physical Satisfaction scale; Planned Amount scale; Self-Consciousness scale; Decreased Priority of Eating scale."
## [5514] "Subscales: SEQ-insider; SEQ-patient."
## [5515] "Subscales: Perspective taking; Online simulation; Emotion contagion; Proximal responsivity; Peripheral responsivity."
## [5516] "Factors: Normative conformity; Normative rule adequacy; Deviant performance seeking; Deviant proactivity seeking."
## [5517] "Subscales: Normative political engagement; Nonnormative political engagement."
## [5518] "Factors: Perceived usefulness; Confirmation; Satisfaction; Communication quality; Responsiveness; Social interaction; News sharing; Continuance intention."
## [5519] "Subscales: Home team; Opposing team; Game promotion; Economic consideration; Schedule convenience; Game amenities; Ticket service; Venue quality; Perceived value; Team identification; Behavioral intentions."
## [5520] "Subscales: People-related success factors (Pepfact); Trust; Trust in Pepfact."
## [5521] "Subscales: Attitude toward the brand; Customer-based brand equity; Positive word-of-mouth; Advertisement creativity; Brand-event fit."
## [5522] "Subscales: Congruency; Consistency; Fan orientation; Fan identity; Sport team enthusiasm; Sport team endorsement; Helping behavior; Sponsor philanthropy."
## [5523] "Factors: Direct burdens of receiving health care; Administrative and financial burdens; Lifestyle burden."
## [5524] "Subscales: Task involvement; Active WOM seeking; Message quality; Opinion leadership; Closeness; WOM influence."
## [5525] "Factors: Inhibition (SIQ15-I); Sensitivity (SIQ15-S); Withdrawal (SIQ15-W)."
## [5526] "Subscales: Balance; Academic Support; Self-Awareness; Academic Engagement; Social Engagement; Physical Strategies; Academic Interest; Miscellaneous Strategies."
## [5527] "Factors: Mistrust (MIS); Uncertainty (UNC); Powerlessness (POW); Resignation (RES)."
## [5528] "Factors: Control; Awareness; Collection."
## [5529] "Subscales: Aesthetic quality; Functionality; Atmosphere; Spaciousness; Physiological conditions."
## [5530] "Factors: Horizontal Social Inclusion (HSI); Vertical Information Inclusion (VII)."
## [5531] "Domains: Access; Condition; Esthetics; Features; Safety; Target Area; Street; Court; Green Space; Path; Playground; Sports Field."
## [5532] "Factors: Bricolage; Product innovativeness; Ties with civil society organizations; Ties with governments; Marketing capabilities; Customer value."
## [5533] "Subscales: Dolphins; Monkeys."
## [5534] "Subscales: Close friends' descriptive norms frequency; Typical college student descriptive norms frequency; Close friends' descriptive norms quantity; Typical college student descriptive norms quantity."
## [5535] "Factors: Lapse; Transgression; Aggressive Behavior; Positive Behavior."
## [5536] "Subscales: Self-reflectivity; Awareness of other's minds; Decentration; Mastery."
## [5537] "Factors: Positive Counseling Expectation (PCE); Negative Counseling Expectation (NCE); Positive Norm (PN); Negative Norm (NN)."
## [5538] "Subscales: Self-reflectivity (S); Understanding other's minds (O); Decentration (D); Mastery (M)."
## [5539] "Subscales: Racial and ethnic identity (RID); Social justice and activism (SJA); Psychological health (PH); Connectedness and spirituality (CS); Humor (HUM); Opposite gender/sexual orientation connections (OGC); Culturally diverse friendships (CDF)."
## [5540] "Subscales: Engaging in Work Practices to Reduce Risk; Communicating Health and Safety Information; Preparing to Drive; Using Personal Protective Equipment; Exercising Employee Rights and Responsibilities; Attending to Driving."
## [5541] "Dimensions: Clutter; Difficulty Discarding; Acquisition; Distress; Impairment."
## [5542] "Factors: Management; Safety; Studies; Social interaction."
## [5543] "Subscales: Scale for Therapeutic Homework Assignment (StH-A); Scale for Therapeutic Homework Review (StH-R)."
## [5544] "Factors: Perceived Job Demands; Goal Progress; Experienced Meaningfulness; Physical Discomfort; Neuroticism; Positive Affect; Negative Affect; Depletion; Self-Efficacy."
## [5545] "Subscales: Information source and format preference; Information ownership and analysis style; Centralized decision-making and information control."
## [5546] "Factors/Subscales: Negative emotions; Assessment of responsibility; Lack of empathy; Social disengagement."
## [5547] "Factors: Exhibitionism; Interpersonal connectivity; Informational value; Brand page activities; Brand page regret; Networking activities; Networking regret; Facebook use intensity."
## [5548] "Effectiveness of WASS; Privacy concern; Security concern; Business integrity; Technology concern; Perceived website trust; Perceived value; Intentions to book hotel online; Habit."
## [5549] "Constructs: Comprehensive IM policy; IM customization; IM reconfiguration; Self-learning; Effective use; IM competence; Communication quality; Productivity."
## [5550] "Learning engagement factors: Challenge; Control; Immersion; Interest; Purpose"
## [5551] "Factors: Attachment Avoidance; Attachment Anxiety."
## [5552] "Subscales: Emotional; Cognitive; Behavioral."
## [5553] "Subscales: Iterative planning and deployment of software; Agile corporate culture; Agile working methods and customer involvement; Feedback-oriented employee centricity; Classic project management."
## [5554] "Subscales: Depression; Generalized anxiety; Social anxiety; Eating concerns; Hostility; Family distress; Academic distress; Substance use."
## [5555] "Factors: Legibility; Performance Time; Physical and Emotional Well-Being."
## [5556] "Subscales: Hyperexpressive traits; Hyperactive traits; Dominance–egocentrism; Impulsivity; Irritable–aggressive traits; Disorderliness; Distraction; Risk taking; Narcissistic traits; Affective lability; Resistance; Inflexibility; Lack of empathy; Dependency; Anxious traits; Lack of self-confidence; Insecure attachment; Submissiveness; Ineffective coping; Separation anxiety; Depressive traits; Shyness; Paranoid traits; Withdrawn Traits; Perfectionism; Extreme achievement striving; Extreme order; Oversensitivity to feelings; Extreme fantasy; Daydreaming; Odd thoughts and behavior. Factors: Disagreeableness; Emotional Instability; Introversion; Compulsivity; Oddity."
## [5557] "Factors: Consulting behaviors; Fluid restriction; Adherence behaviors."
## [5558] "Scales: Autonomy; Relatedness; Competence. Subscales: Satisfaction; Frustration."
## [5559] "Factors: Enacted Stigma; Internalized Stigma."
## [5560] "Subscales: Tendency to justify medical overuse; Perceived relevance of medical overuse; Evaluation of approaches to prevent medical overuse; Evaluation of “Choosing Wisely” advices for family physicians."
## [5561] "Subscales: Fears and Concerns; Employers Resources for Persons with Disabilities; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Competence; Knowledge of Disability."
## [5562] "Subscales: Sexual Emotion Seeking; Tendency for Sexual Boredom."
## [5563] "Subscales: Monitoring; Metacognitive regulation; Self-explanation; Comparison."
## [5564] "Subscales: OUD attitudes and beliefs; OUD treatment and referral practices; belief in OUD treatment effectiveness; support for policies to expand access to OUD medications; physician demographics"
## [5565] "Factors: Achievement; Intimacy; Fair treatment; Relationship; Self-transcendence; Self-acceptance; Religion."
## [5566] "Subscales: Helplessness; Self-efficacy."
## [5567] "Domains: Knowledge; Skills; Social/professional and role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Optimism; Beliefs about consequences; Intentions; Goals; Innovation; Socio-political context; Organization; Patient; Innovation strategy; Social influences; Positive emotions; Negative emotions; Behavioral regulation; Nature of the behaviors."
## [5568] "Dimensions: Stimulus-related anxiety; Social anxieties and cognitions about bullying; Health and somatoform anxieties; Cognitions about insufficiency; Job-related worrying."
## [5569] "Scales: The use of a plastic surgeon as a way to correct imperfection ranks; High standards of appearance and fixation of attention on it; Inclination to unfavorable social comparisons and rumination the topic of appearance."
## [5570] "Factors: Imaginative Capability; Problem Solving Self-Efficacy; Emotional Stress Vulnerability; Negative Attitude toward Uncertainty."
## [5571] "Factors: Human touch; Prestige; Good value."
## [5572] "Subscales: Community Integration; Community Dissemination; Workforce Development; Teacher Belonging."
## [5573] "Factors: Pet-specific constraint; Pet-related structural constraint; Pet-related interpersonal constraint (Pet-related tourism constraints); Perceived benefit; Pet attachment; Learned helplessness; Willingness to negotiate; Intention to travel with pet."
## [5574] "Factors: Acceptance; Negative Conflict; Distinctiveness."
## [5575] "Constructs: MTI- Country Environment; MTI- Tourism Destination; MTI- Medical Tourism Costs; MTI- Facility and Services Medical Staff Quality; Supporting Services Quality; Tourism Involvement; Destination Distinction; Perceived value; Word-of-Mouth."
## [5576] "Factors: Efficacy concern; Safety concern; Cost concern; Time concern; Access concern; Autonomy concern"
## [5577] "Factors: The need for self-change; The ability for conscious self-change; Belief in the possibility of self-change; The possibility of self-change."
## [5578] "Factors: Social interaction ties (SIT); Trust (TR); Perceived similarity (PS); Intention to seek information (SIN); Intention to share comments (SHC); Perceived Integration by using WeChat (PEI)."
## [5579] "Subscales: Personal Freedom (8 items); Equal Rights (4 items); Women Empowerment Related Fears (4 items)."
## [5580] "Factors: Cognitive; Affective."
## [5581] "Subscales: Favorable towards neonatal ELDs with explicit intention to hasten the end of life; Favorable towards neonatal ELDs taking into account the possibility that it could hasten the end of life; Favorable towards late termination of pregnancy when the fetus is viable; Favorable towards late termination of pregnancy for maternal reasons."
## [5582] "Factors: Family Emotional Loneliness; Non-family Emotional Loneliness; Loneliness scale in Romantic Relationships; Romantic Emotional Loneliness."
## [5583] "Factors: App interface usability; Continued intention to use; Perceived intrusiveness; Perceived security; Irritation."
## [5584] "Factors: Behavioral manifestations; Feelings/Cognitions."
## [5585] "Subscales: Personal Activities of Daily Living (PADLs); Play/Leisure; Social Participation; Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs); Education/Work."
## [5586] "Factors: Fluid reasoning; Crystalized knowledge; Short-term memory."
## [5587] "Constructs: Social Communication Style; Task Communication Style; Community Commitment Velocity; Community Commitment Level; Member Gratitude Behavior; Member Entitlement Behavior; Attachment Anxiety; Attachment Avoidance."
## [5588] "Subscales: Quality of feedback (QUAL); Use of feedback (USE); Quantity and timing of feedback (QUAN); Examination and learning (EXAM); Usefulness of feedback (USEF)."
## [5589] "Factors: BMQ-Concern; BMQ-Necessity."
## [5590] "Scales: Emotional Experiences & Daily Activities; Family Relationships; Interactions With Friends and Others; Interactions With Healthcare Team; Social and Emotional Experiences; Financial Considerations; Sources of Support; Handling Diabetes Well; Parent–Young Adult Relationships; Emotional Experiences; Diabetes Management & Health Concerns; Relationship Impact."
## [5591] "Subscales: Emotional Experiences; Self-Management Experiences; Support from Family & Others; Family Conflict; Emotional Experiences & Daily Activities; Peer Relationships; Family Relationships; Handling Diabetes Well."
## [5592] "Subscales: Personal Growth through OLE; Self-regulated and Reflective Learning; Knowledge and Self-Awareness; Respecting Pluralistic Views and Cultures; Communication Skills; Critical Thinking and Creativity; Relationship with Teachers and Peers."
## [5593] "Subscales: Internal; External."
## [5594] "Factors: Norm tractability; Norm agreement; Anticipated punishment; Norm explicitness."
## [5595] "Subscales: Emotional response to interconnectedness (ERI); Appreciation of interconnectedness on self-development (AIS); Interconnectedness in social relations (ISR)."
## [5596] "Subscales: Life focused (LF); Death focused (DF)."
## [5597] "Subscales: Emotional; Cognitive; Behavioral."
## [5598] "Factors: Nature of use (BI&A USE); Absorptive capacity; Innovation ambidexterity; Firm performance."
## [5599] "Factors: Unconditional acceptance of the rules; Primacy of self-reference; Reasoned acceptance of the rules; Collective management of the rules."
## [5600] "Factors: Rational style; Intuitive style; Dependent style; Avoidant style; Spontaneous style."
## [5601] "Subscales: Strangers; Conservatives/Religious; Work; Identity Concealment; Social Withdrawal; Scanning."
## [5602] "Factors: Collaboration in the EOL context; Role clarity in the EOL context; Work-related interruptions of communication with families; Emotional support; Stress by involvement in EOL care and communication with families; Stress by work overload; Initiating EOL decision making."
## [5603] "Subscales: Collaboration in the EOL context; Role clarity in the EOL context; Work-related interruptions of communication with families; Emotional support; Stress by involvement in EOL decision making and communication with families; Stress by work overload; Taking initiative toward EOL decision making."
## [5604] "Factors: Rational persuasion; Pressure; Legitimacy; Coalition; Collaboration; Consultation; Apprising; Inspirational appeal; Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Resistance; Unfaithful use."
## [5605] "Factors: Autonomy Need Satisfaction; Competence Need Satisfaction; Relatedness Need Satisfaction"
## [5606] "Factors: Conformity; Positive effects; Calm/coping; Social."
## [5607] "Subscales: Conformity; Positive effects; Calm/coping; Social."
## [5608] "Factors: External; Structural; Disaster & Crisis; Perceived Crisis Management; Attitude - trust; Negativity bias; Post-crisis intention."
## [5609] "Factors: Urge Severity; Urge Quality."
## [5610] "Subscales: Perceived cost benefit value; Perceived variety value; Perceived environmental benefit value; Perceived physical condition risk; Perceived style preference risk; Perceived shopping opportunities risk; Perceived return sacrifice risk; Perceived return liability risk; Purchase intention."
## [5611] "Subscales: Attitudes towards green hotels (ATT); Subjective norms (SN); Perceived control (PC); Environmentally friendly activities (EFA); Overall image (OI); Visit intention (VI); Willingness to pay more (WP); Satisfaction (S); Loyalty (L)."
## [5612] "Factors: Academic Competence; Practice; Design."
## [5613] "Factors: Performance time and well-being; Legibility."
## [5614] "Subscales: Legibility; Performance time; Physical and emotional well-being."
## [5615] "Factors: Emotional; Social."
## [5616] "Subscales: Emotional; Social."
## [5617] "Factors: cleaned; fresh; uncluttered; perceived service quality"
## [5618] "Factors: Guilt; Shame."
## [5619] "Factors: Planned Use of Pain Medication; Relationship With Care Provider and Supportive Birth Environment; Beliefs About Labor; Labor Support."
## [5620] "Factors: Helping society; Reporting violations; Providing for family; Immediate danger; Other's aggression."
## [5621] "Subscales: Coping; Reward Enhancement; Social; Conformity."
## [5622] "Factors: Quality of Life; Provider Social Support; Psychosocial Needs; Nonprovider Social Support; Health Information and Decision-Making Support."
## [5623] "Factors: Social; Recreatment; Relationship; Motivation."
## [5624] "Factors: Emotional uncertainty; Cognitive uncertainty; Desire for change."
## [5625] "Factors: Sexual self-esteem (SSE); Sexual self-efficacy (SSF); Assertive sexual behaviour (ASB); Assertive sexual communication (ASC)."
## [5626] "Part A Factors: expression/performance management; self-regulation; organization--body, essentials, social; activities of daily living (ADL). Part B Factor: general daily function compared to others."
## [5627] "Factors: Strategic; Differentiated; Technologically savvy."
## [5628] "Factors: Quality indicator (QI); General factor (GF); Residual factor (RF)."
## [5629] "Factors: Engage and motivate; Support and monitor; Generalization; Overall FFP competencies."
## [5630] "Subscales: Human resources development (DEV); Technological support (TECH); Knowledge sharing (SHA); Mentoring practices (MENT); Team reflexivity (REFL); Organizational memory (MEM); Organizational communication (OCOM); Human resources training (TRAI)."
## [5631] "Subscales: Amotivation; External Regulation; Introjected Regulation; Identified Regulation; Intrinsic Motivation (IM) – to Know; IM – Accomplishment; IM – Stimulation."
## [5632] "Subscales: Trauma; Witnessing; Victimization."
## [5633] "Subscales: Economic control; Economic exploitation; Employment sabotage."
## [5634] "Subscales: Views about value of clinical documentation; Burden of documentation; Hospital leadership and documentation; Time taken to complete documentation; Documentation issues and solutions; Intervention evaluation."
## [5635] "Subscales: Achievement-oriented (ACH); Competition-oriented (KIL); Socialization-oriented (SOC); Exploration-oriented (EXP)."
## [5636] "Factors: Entrepreneurial Orientation Innovativeness (EO-I); Entrepreneurial Orientation Proactiveness (EO-P); Entrepreneurial Orientation Risk-taking (EO-R)."
## [5637] "Subscales: Multiple Food Test (Choice) (MFT-C); Multiple Food Test (Knowledge) (MFT-K)."
## [5638] "Factors: Emotional Apathy; Passivity; Delay in Task Completion and Presenteeism; Deterioration in Communication Skills."
## [5639] "Subscales: Avoidance and Maladaptive Patterns Insights (AMP); Goals and Adaptive Patterns Insights (GAP)."
## [5640] "Subscale: Performance expectancy."
## [5641] "Subscales: Assertiveness; Conversation; Self-regulation."
## [5642] "Factors: Productive Interactions (PI); New Relational Model (NRM); Patient Self-Management (PSM)."
## [5643] "Factors: Attention for the patient; Attention for the caregiver."
## [5644] "Factors: Attention for the patient; Attention for the caregiver."
## [5645] "Subscales: Content representation and delivery; Expression of understanding; Activity and student engagement."
## [5646] "Subscales: Empathic inclusive communication; Trust and gratitude for confident HCPs; Reciprocity; Tailored communication; Trustful communication."
## [5647] "Factors: Organization (Safety commitment; Safety supervision; Safety reward and punishment); Environment (Safety environment; Safety compliance); Training (Safety training; Risk management); Psychology (Safety rules; Safety knowledge; Safety perception; Safety attitude); Behavior (Safety communication; Safety behavior; Safety involvement)."
## [5648] "Factors: Positive attitude toward old people; Negative attitude toward old people."
## [5649] "Subscales: Health Care Service Needs; Psychological and Emotional Needs; Work and Social Needs; Information Needs."
## [5650] "Constructs: Self-Efficacy for Identifying and Confronting Prejudicial Behaviors; Collective Efficacy for Creating More Racially/Ethnically Inclusive Departments; Feelings of Autonomy Regarding the Simulations and the Journal Club; Interest in the Simulations and the Journal Club; Beliefs about the Usefulness of the Simulations and Journal Club; Feelings of Immersion/Presence in the Simulations; Perceived Competence in the Simulations; Feelings of Pressure/Tension in the Simulations."
## [5651] "Factors: Nonrestrictive mediation; Restrictive mediation."
## [5652] "Factors: Benevolence; Avoidance; Revenge."
## [5653] "Subscales: Shame; Insight; Connectedness."
## [5654] "Subscales: Authentic pride; Hubristic pride."
## [5655] "Factors: Experienced Supervisor Incivility; Emotional Exhaustion; Intrinsic Motivation; Job Performance."
## [5656] "Subscales: Concern for others; Responsibility; Courage; Self-acceptance."
## [5657] "Factors: Irreversibility; Lack of control and Freezing; Narcissist wounds; Emotional flooding; Emptiness."
## [5658] "Domains: Recent events; Lifetime events; Appraised events."
## [5659] "Factors: onset delay; delay during goal striving (i.e., sustained procrastination); timeliness"
## [5660] "Subscales: Enacted; Orientation Concealment; Anticipated; Internalized."
## [5661] "Scales: Cognitive restraint; Emotional eating; Uncontrolled eating."
## [5662] "Measurement Constructs: Perceived Informativeness; Perceived Persuasiveness; Attitude Toward Post; Response Action; Purchase Intention; Impulsiveness."
## [5663] "Factors: Cognitive restraint; Uncontrolled eating; Emotional eating."
## [5664] "Factors: Perceived media richness (MR); Perceived price fairness (PF); Perceived convenience (CO); Perceived host interaction (HI); Trust (TR); Purchase intention (INT)."
## [5665] "Constructs: Customer Orientation; Excellence; Responsibility; Teamwork. Subconstructs: External perspective; Internal perspective; Continuous improvement; Innovation; Accountability; Commitment; Formal structures: Informal structures."
## [5666] "Factors (Subscales): Cyberbullying; Differential association (Differential behavior; Differential norms); Definitions (Positive definitions; Neutralizing definitions); Imitation (Imitation of primary group; Imitation of secondary group); Differential reinforcement (Personal gain; Peers' reinforcement)."
## [5667] "Factors: Clutter; Discarding; Acquisition."
## [5668] "Subscales: Angry child; Enraged child; Undisciplined child; Dependent child; Abandoned/abused child; Lonely child; Demanding parent; Punitive parent; Compliant surrender; Avoidant protector; Detached protector; Detached self-soother; Attention and approval seeker; Self-aggrandizer; Perfectionistic overcontroller; Suspicious overcontroller; Bully and attack; Healthy adult; Happy Child. Factors: Externalization; Compulsivity; Internalization."
## [5669] "Subscales: Generalized avoidance; Intimate relationships avoidance; Social isolation; Interpersonal passivity; Depressivity."
## [5670] "Factors: Effects on Social Contacts dimension (ECS); Effects on Social Reputation (ERS); Effects on the Occupational Situation and Quality of Life (ESOQV); Health Effects (ES); Effects of Self Expression (EAE)."
## [5671] "Factors: Acceptance of Challenges/Risks and Flexibility/Openness to Changes; Effort/Achievement; Optimism; Proactivity/Initiative."
## [5672] "Subscales: Somatic/panic (SO/PA); Social phobia (SP); Generalized anxiety (GA); Separation anxiety (SA)."
## [5673] "Subscales: Reactive Aggression (RA); Proactive Aggression (PA)."
## [5674] "Subscales: Managing the Psychosocial Aspects of Diabetes; Assessing Dissatisfaction and Readiness to Change; Setting and Achieving Diabetes Goals."
## [5675] "Subscales: Hedonic motivation (HM); Habit (HB); Price value (PV); Effort expectancy (EE); Social influence (SI); Flow (FL); eSports gameplay intention (GI); eSports gameplay behavior (GB; fequency); Team identification (TI); Player identification (PI); Media consumption intention of eSports events (MC)."
## [5676] "Factors: Financial impact; Psychological impact; Social impact."
## [5677] "Factors: Avoidance; Acceptance; Harnessing."
## [5678] "Subscales: Hazing/Peer Pressure; Sabotage; Belittlement; Broken Trust; Online; Stereotyping; Social Exclusion; Physical; Verbal Aggression; Sexual Victimization."
## [5679] "Subscales: NOTICE; EMERGENCY; RESPONSIBILITY; KNOW."
## [5680] "Subscales: Honor, Face, Dignity."
## [5681] "Subscales: Intention to comply with ISSP (INT); Work impediment (IMP); Perceived responsibility (PR); Autonomy (AUT); Self-efficacy (SEF)."
## [5682] "Subscales: Certainty; Simplicity; Source; Justification; Development."
## [5683] "Subscales: Frequency; Intensity."
## [5684] "Factors: Benefit beliefs; Effort beliefs."
## [5685] "Subfactors: Callous aggression; Substance abuse. Subscales: Relational aggression; Physical aggression; Destructive aggression; Empathy; Blame externalization; Alienation; Fraud; Honesty; Dependability; Planful control; Impatient urgency; Rebelliousness; Boredom proneness; Excitement seeking; Alcohol problems; Alcohol use; Marijuana problems; Marijuana use; Drug problems; Drug use; Theft; Irresponsibility; Problematic impulsivity."
## [5686] "Constructs: Positive direct contact; Negative direct contact; Positive extended contact; Negative extended contact; Positive vicarious contact; Negative vicarious contact; Positive focus; Negative focus; Threat; Sense of Chinese National community."
## [5687] "Clusters: Pharmaceutical Public Health; Pharmaceutical care; Organization and Management; Professional/Personal."
## [5688] "Factors: Well-Being; Self-Control; Emotionality; Sociability."
## [5689] "Factors: Negative emotional appeal; Positive emotional appeal; Perceived threat; Expected outcomes; Self-efficacy; Cues to action; Safety behavior."
## [5690] "Factors: Uncertainty leads to the inability to act; Uncertainty is stressful and upsetting; Unexpected events are negative and should be avoided; Being uncertain about the future is unfair."
## [5691] "Factors: Identity; Separation-Individuation from Caregivers; Affect Regulation; Capacity to Invest; Quality of Interpersonal Functioning with Peers."
## [5692] "Scales: Performance; Transformational and Transactional leadership; Compensation and benefits. Factors: Contingent rewards; Management by exceptions (active); Management by exceptions (passive); Financial performance; Non-financial performance; Sustainable performance."
## [5693] "Subscales: Emotional engagement-Low emotional attunement (EE-A); Emotional engagement-Low emotional control (EE-C); Emotional engagement-Detrimental attitude to emotions (EE-D); Emotional interference-Reduced attentional capacity (EI-A); Emotional interference-Reduced behavioural control (EI-B); Emotional response style-Avoidant (ER-A); Emotional response style-Externalizing (ER-E); Emotional response style-Internalizing (ER-I)."
## [5694] "Factors: Pro-trait protection; Con-trait protection."
## [5695] "Factors: Physical involvement; Matching degree; Immersion perception; Learning satisfaction; Learning effectiveness."
## [5696] "Subscales: Elaboration; Positive evaluation; Negative evaluation; Autonomy support and control; Engagement; Disaffection; Memory performance."
## [5697] "Subscales: Pathway; Agency."
## [5698] "Constructs: Internet Self-efficacy on Verification (ISV); Trust Propensity (TP); Physician Credibility (PC); Perceived Informativeness (PI); Perceived Usability (PU); Platform Reputation (PR); Structural Assurance (SA); Economy-based Trust (ET); Information-based Trust (IT); Adoption Intention (AI)."
## [5699] "Factors: White Fragility; Emotional Defensiveness; Accommodation of Comfort; Exceptionism."
## [5700] "Factors: Climate; Content; Practice; Assessment."
## [5701] "Subscales: Physical appearance; Life stressors."
## [5702] "Subscales: Organization performance; Competitive advantage; Innovation capability; Social capital; Human capital; Political ties; Business ties."
## [5703] "Subscales: Hardcore biker; Feisty biker; Fortuitous biker."
## [5704] "Subscales: Social and Consider; Intrapersonal."
## [5705] "Factors: Affection and Attachment (AA); Early Learning (EL); Rules and Respect (RR)."
## [5706] "Subscales: Defusion; Common Humanity; Acceptance."
## [5707] "Indicators: Mental State and Level of Consciousness; Oxygenation; Vital Signs; Nutrition and Hydration; Motility; Locomotion; Body Care; Eliminations; Therapy; Health Education; Behavior; Communication; Cutaneous-Mucosal Integrity."
## [5708] "Factors: Smoking functional beliefs; Risk generalization beliefs; Social acceptability beliefs; Safe smoking beliefs; Self-exempting beliefs; Quitting is harmful beliefs."
## [5709] "Subscales: Clinical care; Relational care; Humanistic care; Comforting care."
## [5710] "Subscales: Symptoms; Daily Activities; Treatment Concerns: Treatment Satisfaction."
## [5711] "Factors (Sub-factors): Reintegration (Finding Meaning; Understanding the System; Social Relationships); Managing the Loss (Tangible Support; Family Relationships; Personal Health Care)."
## [5712] "Factors: Impediments; School Experiences; Family Experiences; Experiences with Peer; Community Experiences; Coping; Skills; Sense of Purpose; Competence."
## [5713] "Subscales: Intrinsic cognitive load (IL); Extraneous cognitive load (EL); Germane cognitive load (GL)."
## [5714] "Subscales: Intrinsic cognitive load; Extraneous cognitive load; Germane cognitive load."
## [5715] "Subscales: Inclusion Principles; Inclusion Practices. Factors: Policies & Environment; Individualized Supports; Administrative Commitment to Inclusion."
## [5716] "Subscales: Separation Anxiety Disorder (SAD); Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD); Panic Disorder (PD); Social Phobia (SP); Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)."
## [5717] "Subscales: Physical; Emotional; Social; Cognitive; Meaning/Spirituality."
## [5718] "Subscales: Goals; Ability; Autonomy; Activity."
## [5719] "Subscales: Safety and Justice; Moving Forward; Image Validation; Emotional Support; Relieve Burden; Relationship Management; Encouraged/Forced Disclosing."
## [5720] "Factors: Anxiety; Effects; Clarity; Treatment; Control; Symptom Variability."
## [5721] "Subscales: Physical assault; Burglary; Cocaine trafficking; Physical injury; Psychological harm; Privacy; Financial costs; Loss of dignity; Reputation."
## [5722] "Subscales: Beliefs; Attitude; Injunctive social norms; Descriptive social norms; Intention; Opportunity; Ability; Galamsey behavior change."
## [5723] "Factors: Critical appraisal of media sources; Critical appraisal of evidence-based nutrition sources."
## [5724] "Factors: Selective Peer Restriction; Nonselective Peer Restriction."
## [5725] "Subscales: Pro-hedonic; Contra-hedonic; Performance; Pro-social; Impression management."
## [5726] "Subscales: Attitudes towards Black Lives Matter; Police-Military Equivalency; Attitudes toward the Policed; Conservative Crime Ideology."
## [5727] "Subscales: Impairment; Symptom Severity."
## [5728] "Factors: Symptom severity; Impairment."
## [5729] "Subscales: Occupational Disruption; Habits and Routines; Social Environment; Family Disapprobation; Residual Strengths; Self-Medicating Behaviors; Physical Environment; Readiness for Change."
## [5730] "Subscales: Knowledge management; Human sustainability; Human capital; Relational capital; Structural Capital; Innovation."
## [5731] "Constructs: Attitudes; Subjective Norm; Perceived Behavioural Control; Intention; Self-reported speeding."
## [5732] "Subscales: Sleep quality index; Sleepiness index; Fatigue index; Impaired waking index; Suspected sleep apnea index."
## [5733] "Subscales: Everyday activities; Sedentary activities; Pain/lifting."
## [5734] "Subscales: Participation; Education; Health; Leisure; Security; Facilitators; Barriers; Knowledge; Skills; Resources and support."
## [5735] "Subscales: Behavioral intention; Subjective norm; Negative attitude; Perceived behavioral control; Self-report behavior; Positive attitude; Health motivation; MPUR habit."
## [5736] "Constructs: Attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Intention; Visibility; Habit; Behavior."
## [5737] "Subscales: Attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Intention; Habit; Visibility."
## [5738] "Subscales: Health Information; Emotional Support; Instrumental Support; Professional Support; Community Support Network; Involvement with Care."
## [5739] "Subscales: Financial success; Image; Popularity; Self-acceptance; Affiliation; Community feeling; Physical health; Spirituality; Conformity; Hedonism; Safety."
## [5740] "Subscales: Intrinsic; Extrinsic; Spirituality (Self-transcendent)."
## [5741] "Subscales: Place Identity; Place Dependence."
## [5742] "Factors: Social distance at professional pharmacy service; Attitudes towards patients diagnosed with schizophrenia; Self-disclosure; Social distance in personal."
## [5743] "Factors: Interpersonal relations; Civilian policies; Diplomatic coordination; Cultural and security coordination."
## [5744] "Subscales: Respiration; Phonation; Resonance; Articulation; Prosody."
## [5745] "Balanced Subscales: Cohesion; Flexibility; Unbalanced Subscales: Disengaged; Enmeshed Cohesion; Rigid; Chaotic Flexibility."
## [5746] "Subscales: Enmeshed; Disengaged; Balanced Cohesion; Chaotic; Balanced Flexibility; Rigid."
## [5747] "Factors: Coping; Enhancement; Social motive; Conformity."
## [5748] "Subscales: AM – Amotivation; ER – External regulation; INR – Introjected regulation; IDR – Identified regulation; IMTK – Intrinsic motivation to know; IMTA – Intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment; IMTE – Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation."
## [5749] "Subscales: Depression; Anxiety; Rule-breaking; Substance use; Isolation at school."
## [5750] "Subscales: Variability-repertoire; Variability-ability to select; Fluency; Symmetry; Performance."
## [5751] "Subscales: Self-injurious behaviors (SIB); Stereotyped behavior; Aggressive/destructive behavior."
## [5752] "Factors: (1) Concreteness and Imagery (Con/Im); (2) Reflection and Reorganization (Ref/Reor); (3) Specificity (Spe); (4) Vividness of the Session Memories (Mem)"
## [5753] "Subscales: SE-manage; SE-function; SE-cope."
## [5754] "Factors: Fear of old people (Factor I); Psychological concerns (Factor II); Physical appearance (Factor III); Fear of losses (Factor IV)."
## [5755] "Factors: Personal internalized aging anxiety; Collective affinity for older people; Relational aging anxiety."
## [5756] "Subscales: Values and Preferences; Involvement; Information/Knowledge."
## [5757] "Factors: Paternalistic Attitude (MSQ-PATER); Deliberate Attitude (MSQ-DELIB)."
## [5758] "Subscales: Adjustment of work; Time control; Goal setting and behaviors consistent with personal values; Adjustment of life rhythms."
## [5759] "Factors: Excellent Practice in Dementia Care; Understanding the Essence of Dementia Care; Caring for Oneself as well as for the Person with Dementia; Having Peers with Shared Support Activities."
## [5760] "Subscales: Social enhancement (SE); Affect regulation (AR); Negative health consequences (NHC); Positive smoking experience (PSME); Negative social consequences (NSC); Addiction concern (AC); Negative sensory experience (NSE); Positive sensory experience (PSE)."
## [5761] "Subscales: Psychological health-promoting leadership; Preventive medicine health-promoting leadership."
## [5762] "Subscales: Basic needs; Psychological needs."
## [5763] "Factors: No Reference Group; Reference Group Nondependent Diversity; Reference Group Nondependent Similarity; Reference Group Dependent."
## [5764] "Subscales: Feeling Angry; Verbal Anger Impulse; Physical Anger Impulse; Angry Reaction; Anger Expression-In; Anger Expression-Out; Anger Control."
## [5765] "Factors: Functional eHealth Literacy; Communicative eHealth Literacy; Critical eHealth Literacy; Translational eHealth Literacy."
## [5766] "Domains: Counterproductive Work Behavior target; Counterproductive Work Behavior severity; Counterproductive Work Behavior visibility."
## [5767] "Subscales: Moral and ethical perceptions of ECT; ECT as a last resort treatment."
## [5768] "Subscales: Perception; Knowledge."
## [5769] "Dimensions: Interpersonal-Organizational; Task Relevance."
## [5770] "Factors: Optimism; Pessimism; Hope."
## [5771] "Factors: Laxness; Overreactivity"
## [5772] "Subscales: Long Term Development Focus; Holistic Quality Preparation; Support Network; Communication; Alignment of Expectations."
## [5773] "Factors: Responsibility climate generated by classmates; Responsibility climate generated by the teacher."
## [5774] "Subscales: Governance, policies, and procedures; Staff training and service delivery; Addressing stigma and discrimination; Accessibility of services; Community relationships; Quality, monitoring, and evaluation; Human resource development."
## [5775] "Factors: Emotional safety; Cognitive safety."
## [5776] "Factors: Work-related bullying; Person-related bullying."
## [5777] "Subscales: Knowledge contribution (KC); Social interaction ties (SIT); Reciprocity (RE); Shared vision (SV); Face (FA); User stickiness (US)."
## [5778] "Subscales: Expected reciprocity (RCP); Self-efficacy (EFF); Subjective norms (NORM); Knowledge transfer."
## [5779] "Subscales: Professional film media; Popular media; Social media; Social influence; External reward; Presenting oneself; Perceived enjoyment; Intention to watch a movie in the cinema."
## [5780] "Factors: Temper control; Social assertiveness; Anxiety control."
## [5781] "Factors: Positive pain metacognitions (PMQ-P); Negative pain metacognitions (PMQ-N)."
## [5782] "Factors: Agentic Norms; Communal Norms. Subscales (with Codes in parentheses): Pushy (A); Competitive (B); Combative (C); Rude (D); Guarded (E); Evasive (F); Hesitant (G); Timid (H); Cautious (I); Yielding (J); Modest (K); Respectful (L); Open (M); Engaged (N); Confident (O); Courageous (P). The octant space can be divided into the following octants: PA, agentic; BC, agentic + uncommunal; DE, uncommunal; FG, unagentic + uncommunal; HI, unagentic; JK, unagentic + communal; LM, communal; and NO, agentic + communal."
## [5783] "Circumplex Factors: Agentic Norms; Communal Norms. Subscales (with Codes in parentheses): Pushy (A); Competitive (B); Combative (C); Rude (D); Guarded (E); Evasive (F); Hesitant (G); Timid (H); Cautious (I); Yielding (J); Modest (K); Respectful (L); Open (M); Engaged (N); Confident (O); Courageous (P). The octant space can be divided into the following octants: PA, agentic; BC, agentic + uncommunal; DE, uncommunal; FG, unagentic + uncommunal; HI, unagentic; JK, unagentic + communal; LM, communal; and NO, agentic + communal."
## [5784] "Factors: Teacher-student interaction; Student interaction in work groups; Intra-group emotional support; Online collaborative tools; Collaborative learning."
## [5785] "Factors: Interest-type epistemic curiosity; Deprivation-type epistemic curiosity; Cognitive fatigue; Perceived learning value of gameplay."
## [5786] "Subscales: psychodynamic; process-experiential; person-centered; cognitive; behavioral; cognitive-behavioral; dialectical-behavioral; common factors"
## [5787] "Subscales: Behavioral Therapy (BT); Cognitive Therapy (CT); Dialectical-Behavior Therapy (DBT); Interpersonal Therapy (IPT); Person Centered (PC); Psychodynamic (PD); Process-Experiential (PE); Common Factors (CF)."
## [5788] "Factors: Each of the CyberVictimization and CyberAggression scales had the same factors: Visual, Falsification, and Exclusion."
## [5789] "Subscales: Know yourself; Value yourself; Plan; Act; Experience outcomes and learn."
## [5790] "Factors: Daily-life disturbance; Positive anticipation; Withdrawal; Cyber-space oriented relationship; Overuse; Tolerance."
## [5791] "Subscales: Life Productivity; Psychological Health; Life Outlook; Relationships."
## [5792] "Subscales: Mindful-attentive awareness; Inattention/distraction."
## [5793] "Factors: Recent pedestrian incidents; Walking habits, challenges, and perceptions; Walking limitation and walking aids; Crossing behaviors; Demographics characteristics; Role in the mobility system."
## [5794] "Subscales: Organizational encouragement; Supervisory encouragement; Work group supports; Sufficient resources; Challenging work; Freedom; Organizational impediments; Workload pressure; Creativity; Productivity."
## [5795] "Subscales: Awareness; Acceptance."
## [5796] "Factors: Impermanence Awareness; Impermanence Acceptance."
## [5797] "Factors: Social safety; Education quality; Entry obstacles; Environment; Recommendations; Knowledge of HC; Work and immigration; Meeting new cultures."
## [5798] "Factors: Socioemotionality; Emotion control. Facets: Adaptability; Peer relations; Self-esteem; Emotion expression; Affective disposition; Emotion perception; Low impulsivity; Emotion regulation; Self-motivation."
## [5799] "Subscales: Functional Health Literacy; Communicative Health Literacy; Health Numeracy."
## [5800] "Subscales: Classroom efficiency; Classroom interaction; Classroom environment; Teacher's professional skill; Task orientation; Overall evaluation."
## [5801] "Factors: Commitment (Comm); Closeness (Clos); Complementarity (Comp)."
## [5802] "Subscales: Teamwork; Goal setting; Social skills; Problem solving; Emotional skills; Leadership; Time management; Communication."
## [5803] "Subscales: Rational Choice; Confirmatory; Fast and frugal; Heuristic-based; Go with gut."
## [5804] "Subscales: Intrinsic Motivation; Extrinsic Motivation; Time Management; Study Dedication; Learning Assessment; General Self-Esteem; Self-Efficacy; Reaction to Failures; Emotional Control; Family Relationships; Fellow Students Relationships; Teachers Relationships."
## [5805] "Factors: Depression sensitivity physical and cognitive concerns (DSPCC); Depression sensitivity social concerns (DSSC)."
## [5806] "Factors: Dissatisfaction; Symptoms; Demoralization; Dependency; Stigma."
## [5807] "Factors: Reputation of HRM system; Consistency; Organisational citizenship behavior; Intention to remain."
## [5808] "Factors: Children identity; View of condition (Basic knowledge cognition; Disease characteristics cognition); Management mindset; Parental mutuality; Parenting philosophy; Management approach (Daily life management; Treatment compliance management; Symptom recognition and processing ability; Ability of the family environment control); Family focus; Future expectation."
## [5809] "Subscales: Identification with the movement; Identification as an environmentalist; Perceived effectiveness of demonstrations; Self-focused anger; Moral motivation."
## [5810] "Subscales: Self-awareness; Self-management; Social Awareness; Relationship skills; Responsible decision-making; Academic competence (in Teacher Form only)."
## [5811] "Subscales: Self-Awareness; Self-Management; Social-Awareness; Relationship skills; Responsible decision-making."
## [5812] "Factors: Performance; Trust; Commitment."
## [5813] "Subscales: Emotional symptoms; Conduct symptoms; Hyperactivity/inattention; Peer relationship problems; Prosocial behavior."
## [5814] "Factors: Operational Internet skills; Formal Internet skills; Information Internet skills; Strategic Internet skills."
## [5815] "Constructs: Operational Internet skills; Formal Internet skills; Informational Internet skills; Communication Internet skills; Strategic Internet skills; Support sources employed when experiencing Internet skill insufficiencies; Beneficial outcomes."
## [5816] "Subscales: Specific Digital Difficulties (SDD); General Digital Difficulties (GDD); Worries about Future Digital Difficulties (WFDD)."
## [5817] "Subscales: Reflective Listening (RL); Responding to Resistance (RR); Summarizing (S); Eliciting Change Talk (ECT); Developing Discrepancy (DD)."
## [5818] "Subscales: Effort; Reward; Overcommitment"
## [5819] "Subscales: Effort; Reward; Overcommitment."
## [5820] "Factors: Familiarity with high-tech digital tools (Modern); Familiarity with classical digital tools (Traditional); Perceived barriers (Barrier); Computer anxiety (Anxiety); Perceived usefulness (Usefulness); Perceived Ease of Use; Behavioral Intention to Use."
## [5821] "Factors: Seeking friends; Seeking convenience; Seeking social support; Seeking information; Seeking entertainment."
## [5822] "Factors: Cognitive motivation; Emotional motivation; Leisure motivation; Herding motivation."
## [5823] "Factors: Relative (SCOrelative); Opinion (SCOopinion)."
## [5824] "Subscales: Working excessively (WE); Working compulsively (WC)."
## [5825] "Subscales: General information; Symptoms/diagnosis; Treatment."
## [5826] "Subscales: ADHD Background Knowledge; Diagnosis and Symptom Knowledge; Knowledge of Guidelines for Evidence-Based Diagnosis; Knowledge of ADHD-Specific Assessment; Knowledge of Psychosocial Evidence-Based Interventions; Knowledge of School/Academic-Based Evidence-Based Interventions; Knowledge of Medications."
## [5827] "Factors: Intention; Attitudes; Subjective Norms; Perceived Behaviour Control."
## [5828] "Subscales: Emotional Expressiveness; Trustworthy; Likeable."
## [5829] "Subscales: Decision-making; Clinical vignettes; Information seeking"
## [5830] "Subscales: Intention to practice; Attitude; Indirect attitude; Subjective norm; Indirect norm; Perceived control; Indirect control."
## [5831] "Subscales: Anxiety; Avoidance."
## [5832] "Subscales: Executive; Initiation; Emotional (Social Emotional; Individual Emotional)."
## [5833] "Subscales: Global Service Climate; Customer Feedback; Customer Orientation; Managerial Practices."
## [5834] "Subscales: Travel intentions (TI); Processing fluency (PF); Self-congruity (SC); Gender identity congruity (GIC)."
## [5835] "Factors: Mood volatility/excitement; Social vitality."
## [5836] "Factors: Global Service Climate; Customer Feedback; Customer Orientation; Managerial Practices."
## [5837] "Factors: Aesthetics; Durability; Ease of use; Features; Performance; Reliability; Serviceability; Materials."
## [5838] "Factors: Negative thoughts about children; Evaluation of divorce; Negative thoughts about the self."
## [5839] "Factors: Preservation; Utilisation. Scales: Enjoyment of nature; Support for interventionist conservation policies; Environmental movement activism; Conservation motivated by anthropocentric concern; Confidence in science and technology; Environmental fragility; Altering nature; Personal conservation behaviour; Human dominance over nature; Human utilization of nature; Ecocentric concern; Support for population growth policies."
## [5840] "Subscales: Nurse Participation in Hospital Affairs; Nursing Foundations for Quality of Care; Nurse Manager Ability, Leadership, and Support of Nurses; Staffing and Resource Adequacy; Collegial Nurse-Physician Relations."
## [5841] "Subscales: Positive Rumination; Negative Rumination. Factors: Enjoy Happiness; Positive Coping; Suppress Happiness; Self Deny; Negative Attribution."
## [5842] "Subscales: Affective; Cognitive."
## [5843] "Subscales: Intrinsic motivation; Self-efficacy; Self‐determination; Grade motivation; Career motivation."
## [5844] "Subscales: Uniqueness; Expensiveness; Symbolic meaning; Arbitrary desire; Belonging to an exclusive minority."
## [5845] "Subscales: Youth; Elders; Sense of community; Language and culture; Communication; Leadership (Native language tribe only); Women (English language tribe only)."
## [5846] "Subscales: Emotional; Biophysiological; Social."
## [5847] "Factors: Confirmation; Perceived usefulness; Satisfaction; Referent network size; Perceived complementarity; Flow; Continuance intention; Word of mouth."
## [5848] "Factors: Challenge-focused encouragement (C); Potential-focused encouragement (P)."
## [5849] "Factors: Uses aggression; Contributing factors; Seriousness; Frequency of aggression; Fear of retaliation."
## [5850] "Factors: General adjustment; Interaction adjustment; Work adjustment, Regulatory focus."
## [5851] "Subscales: Symptom (MFN-S); Impairment (MFN-I)."
## [5852] "Factors: Neglect and assault (N&A); Discrimination and exploitation (D&E)."
## [5853] "Subscales: General Time Consuming Media; Attention to AMV-Related Media; Time Consuming AMV-Related Media; Anxious Emotions; Other Negative Emotions."
## [5854] "Model Constructs: Exposure to ads; Dreams of ads; Purchase intention."
## [5855] "Subscales: Good affection (GA); Family role norms (FRN); Balance of interests (BI)."
## [5856] "Factors: Preference; Tolerance; Aversion."
## [5857] "Subscales: Patient Care; Safety; Professional Behaviors."
## [5858] "Subscales: Concern; Control; Curiosity; Confidence."
## [5859] "Subscales: Prisoner relationships; Staff-prisoner relationships; Procedural justice; Safety; Satisfaction with visits; Satisfaction with frequency of contact; Sleep quality; Quality of care; Shop quality; Settlement of complaints; Satisfaction with activities; Availability of meaningful activities; Reintegration; Autonomy."
## [5860] "Factors: Developmental Support; Task Support."
## [5861] "Subscales: Absolute centrality of work; Relative centrality of work and work valence; Purposes of work; General expectations regarding working life; Obligations and duties of employers and society to workers; Obligations and duties of workers to employers and society; Representations of decent work."
## [5862] "Subscales: Pedagogical atmosphere on the ward; Leadership style of the ward manager; Premises of nursing on the ward; Supervisory relationship; Role of the nurse teacher."
## [5863] "Subscales: Emergency help; Monetary/emotional help; Social responsibility; Common help."
## [5864] "Factors: Congruity; Utilitarian; Music appeal."
## [5865] "Domains: Conventional crime; Caregiver victimization; Peer and sibling victimization; Sexual victimization; Witnessing and indirect victimization; Electronic victimization."
## [5866] "Constructs: Optimism; Innovativeness; Discomfort; Insecurity; Adoption; Usefulness; Ease of Use; Attitude; Continuance intention."
## [5867] "Factors: System trust; Socio-cultural influence; Perceived risk; Hedonic benefits/perceived enjoyment; Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness of mobile payments; Attitude toward mobile payment; Mobile payment behavioral intention."
## [5868] "Subscales: Ventral; Superior temporal sulcus; Dorsal."
## [5869] "Subscales: Social well-being; Psychological well-being; Emotional well-being."
## [5870] "Factors: Personalized Need for Power; Socialized Need for Power."
## [5871] "Subscales: Economic; Cultural; Political."
## [5872] "Subscales: Coping by self (CI-ALS-2 [self]); Coping with others CI-ALS–9 (others)."
## [5873] "Subscales: Social isolation; Risk of COVID-19 infection; Financial difficulties; Relationship difficulties."
## [5874] "Subscales: Derealization; Depersonalization; Amnesia."
## [5875] "Factors: Death of a child-spouse; Death of a loved one; Conflict with a family member or loved one."
## [5876] "Factors: Knowledge; Attitudes."
## [5877] "Factors: Reliability Trust; Honesty Trust."
## [5878] "Subscales: Stereotype awareness; Stereotype agreement; Stereotype self-concurrence/Application; Harm."
## [5879] "Subscales: Emotional Support; Family and Personal Support; Instrumental Support."
## [5880] "Constructs: Training needs analysis; Training realization and application; Training evaluation; Training transfer; Learning culture."
## [5881] "Factors: Internal psychological career mobility; External psychological career mobility; Self-directed career management; Person-job fit; Career satisfaction."
## [5882] "Factors: Performance expectancy; Effort expectancy; Social influence; Facilitating conditions; Hedonic motivation; Price value; Behavioral intention to use."
## [5883] "Factors: Throwing; Running; Catching; Hopping; Kicking; Leaping; Bouncing; Jumping."
## [5884] "Subscales: Hopelessness; Interpersonal Needs; Anxiety Sensitivity; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Alcohol Use Disorder; Insomnia Severity; Drug Use."
## [5885] "Subscales: Academic satisfaction (AS); Perceived performance weight-research (PPW-R); Perceived performance weight-teaching (PPW-T); Perceived performance weight-service (PPW-S)."
## [5886] "Components: Tolerance of cheating behavior; Belief in cheating; Status of the cheating culture."
## [5887] "Subscales: Phonology; Semantics; Morphosyntax."
## [5888] "Subscales: Quality; Value; Innovativeness; Popularity."
## [5889] "Factors: Contribution to Self; Contribution to Family; Contribution to Community."
## [5890] "Subscales: Event image; Spectator satisfaction; Behavioral intentions to the event; Behavioral intentions to event sponsors' product."
## [5891] "Subscales: CKM: knowledge from customers; CKM: knowledge about customer; CKM: knowledge for customer; Perceived service quality: physical environment; Perceived service quality: interaction quality; Perceived service quality: outcome quality; Psychological involvement: pleasure; Psychological involvement: centrality; Psychological involvement: sign; Cognitive loyalty; Affective loyalty; Conative loyalty; Action loyalty (behavioral)."
## [5892] "Subscales: Prescription Opioid Misuse; Risky Non-Injection Use; Injection Drug Use; Concurrent Opioid and Benzodiazepine Use; Concurrent Opioid and Alcohol Use; Multiple-Drug Polysubstance Use."
## [5893] "Subscales: Delay discounting scale; Probability discounting scale; Effort discounting scale; 4. Social discounting scale"
## [5894] "Subscales: Delay Discounting; Probabilistic Discounting; Effort Discounting; Social Discounting."
## [5895] "Subscales: (a) sensitivity; (b) encouragement of exploration; (c) compulsive caregiving; and (d) avoidance of uncertainty."
## [5896] "Subscales: Cognitions about the self; Cognitions about the world; Blame."
## [5897] "Factors: The measurement questions included three dimensions: Pressure responses (Stress susceptibility (SS); Stress adjustment (SA)); Risk cognition (Cognition of danger (CD); Cognition of illness (CI)); Stress reactions (Emotional responses (ER); Somatic responses (SR))."
## [5898] "Factors: Behavioral aspects of LOC-eating; Cognitive/dissociative aspects of LOC-eating; Positive/Euphoric aspects of LOC-eating."
## [5899] "Factors: Human capital; Structural capital; Relational capital; Innovation speed; Innovation quality; Operational performance; Financial performance."
## [5900] "Factors: Perceived employer promises; Perceived employee promises; Acquisition of organizational information; Institutionalization of socialization tactics; Supervisors’ relational behaviors."
## [5901] "Factors: Organizational deviance; Interpersonal deviance."
## [5902] "Factors: Natural; Normal; Necessary; Nice."
## [5903] "Factors: Exhaustion (EXHAUST); Detachment (DETACH); Powerlessness (POW)."
## [5904] "Components: Social distancing; Personal hygiene; Leaving/food; Leaving/exercise."
## [5905] "Factors: Perceiving emotions in faces; Perceiving emotions in pictures."
## [5906] "Factors: Experience seeking; Boredom susceptibility; Thrill and adventure seeking; Disinhibition."
## [5907] "Subscales: Innate; Social; Interactive; Reflective."
## [5908] "Subscales: Attitudes; Subjective norms; Self-efficacy; Controllability; Intentions."
## [5909] "Subscales: Self-criticizing; Catastrophizing; Demandingness; Frustration Intolerance."
## [5910] "Factors: Eating for Physical Rather Than Emotional Reasons (EPR); Unconditional Permission to Eat (UPE); Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues (RHSC); Body-Food Choice Congruence (BFCC)."
## [5911] "Subscales: Low-Achieving/Undesirable Culture; Sexualization; Invisibility; Environmental Invalidations; Criminality; Foreigner/Not Belonging."
## [5912] "Subscales: Presence; Searching."
## [5913] "Factors: Family (FA); Friends (FR); Significant Other (SO)."
## [5914] "Factors: Family Empowerment; Community Empowerment."
## [5915] "Factors: Preoccupation with smartphone (Preoc); Daily-life disturbance (DDis); Positive anticipation (PosA); Cyberspace-oriented relationship (CyRel); Overuse (OverU)."
## [5916] "Subscales: Human-related contamination; Animal-related contamination."
## [5917] "Subscales: Positive emotions (P); Engagement (E); Relationships (R); Meaning (M); Accomplishment (A)."
## [5918] "Factors: Negative cognition; Negative affect/avoidance; Negative affect/aggression"
## [5919] "Constructs: Web Page Order; Web Page Order; Visual Appeal; Engagement; Intention to Use."
## [5920] "Factors: Simplicity and certainty of social media-based knowledge (SCK); Source of knowledge (SK); Justification for knowing (JK)."
## [5921] "Factors: Knowledge (Nutrition; Healthy meal preparation; Healthy food options); Attitude (Attitude towards cooking and healthy food; Attitude towards healthy snacks; Outcome expectations for healthy meal preparation); Practice (Practices of healthy meal preparation; Practices of added sugar consumption); Self-efficacy (Healthy meal preparation and food choice; Healthy meal preparation (vegetable related))."
## [5922] "Constructs: Individual Market Orientation; Selling Orientation; Customer Orientation."
## [5923] "Subscales: Frequency of thoughts; Belief in these thoughts; Anxiety associated with negative thoughts and beliefs."
## [5924] "Subscales: How frequently you have these thoughts; How much you believe these thoughts; How anxious these thoughts make you feel."
## [5925] "Subscales: General market orientation; Intelligence generation; Dissemination and responsiveness; Marketing informant; Nonmarketing informant."
## [5926] "Subscales: Low literacy; Inactive use; Low responsiveness; Lack of consideration; Low group activity."
## [5927] "Subscales: Impact of fatigue; Signs and direct consequences of fatigue; Mental fatigue; Physical fatigue; Coping with fatigue."
## [5928] "Constructs: Emotional Labor: Positive Display Requirements; Psychological Power: Perceived Customer Power; Sexual Harassment: Sexual Hostility and Unwanted Sexual Attention; Psychological Power: Sense of Power; Psychological Power: Associations with Power; Sexual Harassment: Unwanted Sexual Attention; Employee Attractiveness."
## [5929] "Dimensions: Computer Science Concepts."
## [5930] "Subscales: Ecological knowledge; Hope; Behavior."
## [5931] "Component: Anxiety; Confidence about physics terminology and physics course."
## [5932] "Factors: Attitude (general); Cognition (bifactor)."
## [5933] "Subscales: Multicultural Ability (MAb); Multicultural Knowledge (MK); Multicultural Awareness (MAw)."
## [5934] "Factors: Intention to continue use; Attitude; Satisfaction; Ease of use; Usefulness; Confirmation; Playfulness."
## [5935] "Subscales: Emotional; Physical; Neglect; Non-violent."
## [5936] "Subscales: Emotional; Physical; Neglect; Non-violent."
## [5937] "Subscales: Emotional violence; Physical violence; Nonviolent discipline methods."
## [5938] "Subscales: Emotional violence; Physical violence; Nonviolent discipline methods."
## [5939] "Factors: Knowledge of hardware; Knowledge of general software; Knowledge of Mathematical software; Knowledge of online tools."
## [5940] "Subscales: Religiosity; Group centrism; Intergroup forgiveness; Reconciliation."
## [5941] "Factors: Lack of tolerance toward others; Desire to have control over others; Dependent self-worth; Religious intolerance."
## [5942] "Factors: Uncontrollability; Harm; Social consequences."
## [5943] "Subscales: Fear; Anger; Sadness; Loneliness."
## [5944] "Factors: Intergroup Dependence; Mutual rippling."
## [5945] "Subscales: Direct Extreme Experiences (dEX²); Indirect Extreme Experiences (iEX²)."
## [5946] "Subscales: Instrumentality (INS); Anxiety (ANX); Comfort (COM); and Digital literacy (DIG)."
## [5947] "Subscales: Fear of Death; Death Avoidance; Neutral Acceptance; Escape Acceptance; Approach Acceptance."
## [5948] "Subscales: Humanity; Optimism; Leadership; Creativity."
## [5949] "Subscales: Technical competence; Visibility awareness competence; Knowledge competence; Impact assessment competence; Social media communication competence."
## [5950] "Subscales: Attribution-independent (AI) emotions; External-attribution-dependent (EAD) emotions; Internal-attribution-dependent (IAD) emotions."
## [5951] "Subscales: Technical competence; Visibility awareness competence; Knowledge competence; Impact assessment competence; Social media communication competence."
## [5952] "Factors: Unsettled state of mind; Regulation difficulties; Smartphone incentives; Need for approval."
## [5953] "Subscales: Character Strength; Ethical Awareness; Moral Judgment Skills; Willingness to Do Good."
## [5954] "Factors: Navigating Multiple Heritages Socialization; Multiracial Identity Socialization; Preparation for Monoracism Socialization; Negative Socialization; Race-Conscious Socialization; Colorblind Socialization; Diversity Appreciation Socialization; Silent Socialization."
## [5955] "Subscales; Death of self; Dying of self; Death of others; Dying of others."
## [5956] "Subscales: Sunscreen Toxicity; Seasonal Effects; Health Benefits of Tanning; Tanning Through the Winter."
## [5957] "Factors: Environmental; Ethical; Legal; Social/Philanthropic; Financial."
## [5958] "Factors: Human resource factors; Customer delight; Surprise; Customer loyalty"
## [5959] "Subscales: Anxiety; Depression."
## [5960] "Factors: Customer satisfaction; Hospitality performance; Preservational values; Recreational values; Relational values."
## [5961] "Factors: Consumer hope; Consumer goal attainment; Consumer repurchase intentions; Online information disclosure; Product knowledge."
## [5962] "Factors: Attitude; Subjective norms; Perceived behavioral control; Social image; Intention."
## [5963] "Subscales: SRT-fluency-self-anger; SRT-fluency-other-anger; SRT-fluency-fear; SRT-flexibility-self-anger; SRT-flexibility-other-anger; SRT-flexibility-fear."
## [5964] "Factors: Sexual body-esteem; Sexual entitlement-self; Sexual entitlement-partner; Sexual self-efficacy; Sexual self-reflection."
## [5965] "Subscales: Major depressive disorder (MDD); Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); Social anxiety disorder (SAD); Panic disorder; Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)."
## [5966] "Factors: Foreign Admiration; Domestic Rejection."
## [5967] "Subscales: Physical; Affective; Behavioral."
## [5968] "Factors: Leader humility; Customer knowledge; Adaptive self-efficacy; Customer-oriented harmonious passion; Salespeople's adaptive selling; Sales managers’ adaptive selling."
## [5969] "Subscales: Knowledge and Theory; Communication and Cooperation; Value and Ethics; Planning and Assessment; Case Work Skills; Group Work Skills; Community Work Skills; Research and Development."
## [5970] "Subscales: Anticipated regret; Attitude; Descriptive norm; Donation anxiety; Intentions; Moral norm; Religious norm; Pro-social behavior; Self-efficacy; Self-identity; Subjective norm."
## [5971] "Subscales: Joy in Practice; Personal Growth; Leadership and Learning."
## [5972] "Factors: Inner passion of the teacher, efforts to develop the pupil overall; Social aspects of teaching; Relationship to authority; Existence and rules keeping."
## [5973] "Subscales: Teacher Level Barrier; School Level Barrier; Curriculum Level Barrier; Student Level Barrier."
## [5974] "Subscales: Self-Regulation; Fantasy; Task Engagement; Empathy."
## [5975] "Subscales: use of official and commercial sources; use of personal sources; use of electronic media sources; trust in commercial sources; trust in electronic media sources; trust in personal sources."
## [5976] "Factors: Performative Reputation; Moral Reputation; Legal-Procedural Reputation."
## [5977] "Subscales: Social/community inclusion; Family attachment and supports; Spirituality; National and cultural identity; Personal competencies."
## [5978] "Subscales: Parental Monitoring; Parent-Child Social Connectedness; Best Friend Relationship; Religiosity; Neighborhood and Community Relations; Self-esteem; Family Rituals."
## [5979] "Subscales: Financial Stress; Depression; Substance Use; Legal Trouble; Parental Separation or Divorce; Interparental Conflict; Physical Abuse; Emotional Abuse."
## [5980] "Factors: Innovativeness; Face consciousness; Need for uniqueness; Ambiguity intolerance; Hedonic value; Utilitarian value; Continuance intention to use."
## [5981] "Subscales: Utilitarian motives; Retributive motives; Restorative motives."
## [5982] "Factors: Visual attraction; Usability; Understanding; Perceived usefulness; Behavioral changes."
## [5983] "Subscales: Sexual Abuse; Physical Abuse."
## [5984] "Factors: Sensorial; Emotional; Behavioral; Intellectual."
## [5985] "Subscales: Firm-created social media content; User-generated social media content; Brand attitude; Event attitude; Intention to participate."
## [5986] "Subscales: Neighborhood care; Neighborhood attachment; Place identity; Social norms; Support for measures; Residential satisfaction."
## [5987] "Factors: Abstract Actions; Concrete Actions."
## [5988] "Subscales: Detailed pandemic information; Positive risk communication; Rumor refutation; Supplies; Perceived efficacy; Positive emotions; Risk perception; Preventive; Avoidant; Management of illness."
## [5989] "Subscales: Motivation-as-Valuing; Behavioral Norms of Forgiveness; Proclamation; Promise; Behavioral Gestures of Good Will; Establishment of Social Structures; Educational Initiatives."
## [5990] "Subscales: Support and Impact; Lifestyle; Emotional Health and Wellbeing; Self-care; Financial Wellbeing; Jobs and careers."
## [5991] "Subscales: Research oriented; Work role; Diagnostic functions; Managing situations; Patient education; Mentoring functions."
## [5992] "Factors: Spirituality; Spiritual care; Religiosity; Personalized care."
## [5993] "Factors: Assessment and implementation of spiritual care; Professionalization and improving the quality of spiritual care; Personal support and patient counselling; Referral to professionals; Attitude towards patient's spirituality; Communication."
## [5994] "Factors: Comprehension; Application; Numeracy; Communication."
## [5995] "Effort Factors: Workload; Social responsibility; Emotional demands; Student-related emotional demands. Reward Factors: Emotional reward; Material reward."
## [5996] "Factors: Behavior factor; Mind factor; Social Presentation factor. Social Information Processing; Social Presentation."
## [5997] "Subscales: Ease-of-Use (EoU); Functionality (F); Aesthetics (A); Symbolism (S)."
## [5998] "Factors: Vivid Visual Imagery; Soothing Visual Imagery"
## [5999] "Subscales: Flow; Movement; Force; Interior; Wandering"
## [6000] "Subscales: Understanding selling intent; Understanding persuasive intent; Understanding persuasive tactics; Advertising skepticism; Advertising disliking; Motivation to use coping strategies; Ability to use coping strategies; Use of coping strategies; Advertised product desire; Advertised product choice."
## [6001] "Factors: Honesty-Humility (H); Emotionality (E); eXtraversion (X); Agreeableness (A); Conscientiousness (C); Openness-to-Experience (O)."
## [6002] "Subscales: Severity; Valence; Arousal; Dominance."
## [6003] "Subscales: Emotional control effort in profession; Patient-focused emotional suppression; Emotional pretence by norms."
## [6004] "Subscales: Simple reaction time (SRT) task; Go/No-Go (GNG) task; Four-position reaction time (4PRT) task."
## [6005] "Subscales: Vulnerable Child; Angry Child; Enraged Child; Impulsive Child; Undisciplined Child; Happy Child; Compliant Surrender; Detached Protector; Detached Self-Soother; Self-Aggrandizer; Bully and Attack; Punitive Parent; Demanding Parent; Healthy Adult."
## [6006] "Subscales: Deflated; Somatic; Religion; Crying."
## [6007] "Factors: Integrating; Dominating; Avoiding."
## [6008] "Factors: Motivation to Foster New Social Connections (New); Motivation to Foster Existing Social Connections (Existing)."
## [6009] "Factors: Individualizing Moral Foundations; Blame Attributions; Anger; Boycott Intentions."
## [6010] "Subscales: Behavioral Intention; Performance Expectancy; Effort Expectancy; Social Influence; Facilitating Conditions; Perceived Risk."
## [6011] "Factors: Negative integration (NI); Positive integration (PI)."
## [6012] "Subscales: Gender sensitivity (GS); Gender-role ideology towards patients (GRI-patient); Gender-role ideology towards doctors (GRI-doctor)."
## [6013] "Subscales: Gender sensitivity; Gender-role ideologies towards patients; Gender-role ideologies towards doctors."
## [6014] "Subscales: Perspective Taking; Compassionate Care; Standing in the Patient’s Shoes."
## [6015] "Factors: Youth aggression; Youth emotional distress; Youths’ exposure to verbal conflict between the mother and her intimate partner; Neighborhood violence; Youth attachment with teachers/school."
## [6016] "Factors: Hostile sexism; Benevolent sexism."
## [6017] "Subscales: Hostility toward Men; Benevolence toward Men."
## [6018] "Subscales: Knowledge of action possibilities; Confidence in one's own influence; Willingness to act."
## [6019] "Factors: Self-efficacy for interactions; Self-efficacy for information."
## [6020] "Indicators: Emphasizing success; De-emphasizing success; Emphasizing failure; De-emphasizing failure."
## [6021] "Indicators: Failure-oriented responses; Success-oriented responses."
## [6022] "Scales: Self-improvement goals; Self-worth goals."
## [6023] "Factors: Informal supports; Avoidance; Self-help; Professional help."
## [6024] "Subscales: Traditional Beliefs about Gender (TBG); Traditional Beliefs about Gender Identity (TBI)."
## [6025] "Subscales: Social support (SUP); Social skills (SKL); Planning and prioritizing behavior (PLN); Goal efficacy (GE)."
## [6026] "Subscales: Dependence; Autonomy."
## [6027] "Factors: Behaviors in clinical situation; Knowledge and skills; Emotional response; Responsibility of healthcare professionals."
## [6028] "Scales: Inter-firm market orientation (IFMO) (IFMO: Intelligence Generation; IFMO: Intelligence Dissemination; IFMO: Responsiveness); Brand orientation (BO); Business performance (Financial performance; Marketing performance)."
## [6029] "Subscales: Parental verbal abuse (PVA); Parental non-verbal emotional abuse (PNEVA); Parental physical maltreatment (PPA); Emotional neglect (EN); Physical neglect (PN); Witnessing interpersonal violence to parents (WITP); Witnessing violence to siblings (WITS); Peer verbal/emotional abuse (PEERE); Peer physical bullying (PEERP); Sexual abuse (familial and extra-familial (SEXA)."
## [6030] "Subscales: Likelihood of Illness; Awfulness of Illness; Difficulty Coping with Illness; Medical Services Inadequacy."
## [6031] "Subscales: Likelihood of illness (CHCQ-L,); Awfulness of illness (CHCQ-A); Difficulty coping with illness (CHCQ-C); Medical services inadequacy (CHCQ-M)."
## [6032] "Factors: Vulgar/Immoral; Embracing Metal Culture/Fun; Human Experience; History/Myths/Nature; Science and Science Fiction."
## [6033] "Factors: Facebook Intensity; Online Connection Strategies; Relationship Maintenance Behaviors; Maintaining Connection Strategies; Offline Connection Strategies."
## [6034] "Factors: Current life/culture; Close relationships; Goals and plans."
## [6035] "Subscales: Anger/Frustration (Frustration); Behavioral Inhibition (Inhibition); Attentional Persistence (Attention)."
## [6036] "Factors: Bridging social capital; Bonding social capital."
## [6037] "Factors: Monotheism; Atheism."
## [6038] "Subscales: Value of Intelligence in Men's/Women's Lives; Value of Attractiveness in Men's/Women's Lives."
## [6039] "Subscales: Emotional Eating (DEBQ Em); External Eating (DEBQ Ex); Restrained Eating (DEBQ Re)."
## [6040] "Factors: Concern over Mistakes (CM); Doubts about Actions (DAA); Parental Expectations (PE); Parental Criticism (PC); Personal Standards (PS)."
## [6041] "Factors: Well-being; Self-control; Emotionality; Sociability."
## [6042] "Factors: Problem-focused regret coping (PF); Maladaptive regret coping (Emotion-focused regret coping A; EFA); Adaptive regret coping (Emotion-focused regret coping B; EFB)."
## [6043] "Factors: Positive Parenting; Ineffective Parenting; Poor Monitoring."
## [6044] "Subscales: Norms Against Youth Substance Use-Normal to Use; Norms Against Youth Substance Use-Wrong to Use; Community Support for Prevention; Openness to Change; Cohesion; Conflict Resolution; Effective Leadership; Shared Responsibility."
## [6045] "Subscales: Evoking behaviour(s); Care taking procedures; Reading and managing emotional cues; Reading and managing bodily cues."
## [6046] "Subscales: Self-attributed supportive dyadic coping; Partner-attributed supportive dyadic coping; Self-attributed delegated dyadic coping; Partner-attributed delegated dyadic coping; Self-attributed negative dyadic coping; Partner-attributed negative dyadic coping; Problem-solving common dyadic coping; Emotionally-supporting common dyadic coping."
## [6047] "Factors: Negative; Stress Communication; Taken over; Supportive."
## [6048] "Subscales: Positive emotions; Engagement; Relationship; Meaning; Accomplishment; Overall wellbeing; Negative emotions; Physical health."
## [6049] "Factors: Personal awareness; Contextual awareness; Professional awareness; Conscientious awareness."
## [6050] "Subscales: Authors & audiences; Messages & meaning; Representation & reality."
## [6051] "Factors: Negative Metacognitions about Uncontrollability of Online Gaming (N-MOGU); Negative Metacognitions about Dangers of Online Gaming (N-MOGD); Positive Metacognitions about Online Gaming (PMOG)."
## [6052] "Subscales: Objective Caregiver Strain (OCGS); Internalized Subjective Caregiver Strain (ISCGS); Externalized Subjective Caregiver Strain (ESCGS)."
## [6053] "Factors: Exchanging information; Relationship with the nurse; Making decisions; Attention to emotions; Enabling patient self-management; Dealing with uncertainty."
## [6054] "Subscales: Striving for perfection during competitions; Negative reactions to imperfection during competitions."
## [6055] "Factors: Organizational culture and awareness of policy and procedures; Confidence to act; Attitudes to prevention and agency of children/young people; Situational prevention knowledge and education."
## [6056] "Factors: Cardiorespiratory; Musculoskeletal; Psychological; Gastrointestinal; General; Body balance; Globus."
## [6057] "Domains: Autonomy; Occupational Functioning; Cognitive functioning; Financial Issues; Interpersonal relationships: Leisure Time."
## [6058] "Factors: Caring for parents; Familial entirety; Familial aspiration."
## [6059] "Factors: C-Participation in school; G-Advocacy activities; A-Life at home; B-Community and neighborhood; D-School learning; E-Health and safety; F-Social skills."
## [6060] "Subscales: Sport team; Environment; Socialization; Personal identity; Group identity."
## [6061] "Subscales: Perceived overqualification; Organizational identification; Job crafting (JC) towards strengths; Job crafting towards interests; Vitality; Task performance."
## [6062] "Factors: Balance (Involvement; Effectiveness; Affective); Global Balance."
## [6063] "Subscales: Place identity; Place dependence; Feeling welcomed; Emotional closeness; Sympathetic understanding; Affinity; Avoidance."
## [6064] "Subscales: Extensions of Self (ES); Self-Confidence (SC); Individuality (I); Connections to Others (CO); Responsibility to Others (RO); Sharing with Others (SO)."
## [6065] "Subscales: Inattention/Memory Problems; Hyperactivity/Restlessness; Impulsivity/Emotional Lability; Problems with Self‐Concept."
## [6066] "Subscales: Comfort; Social Life; Usability."
## [6067] "Factors: Performance Creativity (Perform); Mechanical/Scientific Creativity (Science); Artistic Creativity (Art); Self-Everyday Creativity (Every); Scholarly Creativity (Scholar)."
## [6068] "Factors: Perception of competent subordinates; Feeling insecure about competent subordinates; Feeling ostracized by the managers; Negative gossip about the managers; Commitment toward the managers; Self-rated empowerment."
## [6069] "Subscales: Perceiving; Facilitating; Understanding; Managing."
## [6070] "Dimensions: Work friendships; Nonwork friendships."
## [6071] "Factors: Compatibility (Co); Trialability (Tr); Observability (Ob); Perceived Work-related threats (WRT); Perceived Usefulness (PU); Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU); Behavioural Intention to Use (BITU)."
## [6072] "Factors: Remote injunctive social norms; Online descriptive social norms; Remote descriptive social norms; Online injunctive social norms; Co-present injunctive social norms – blame; Co-present injunctive social norms – advice; Co-present descriptive social norms."
## [6073] "Subscales: Efficacy; Satisfaction."
## [6074] "Factors: Relational Norms (RN) (Second-order factor); Flexibility Norms (FN); Information Exchange Norms (IEN); Solidarity Norms (SN); Calculative Commitment (CC); Affective Commitment (AC); Opportunistic Behavior (OB); Collaborative Innovation (CI); Substitutability (S)."
## [6075] "Factors: Belongingness (Overarching Factor); Companionships; Affiliations; Connectedness."
## [6076] "Constructs: Shadow IT usage; Social presence; Individual performance."
## [6077] "Subscales: Safety Knowledge; Safety Compliance; Safety Motivation; Safety Participation; Safety Training; Job Stress; Self Esteem; Social Support; Fatigue; Personal Stress."
## [6078] "Factors: Persecutory ideation (PI); Bizarre experiences (BEs); Perceptual abnormalities (PAs)."
## [6079] "Subscales: Relabel symptoms; Awareness of illness; Need for treatment."
## [6080] "Subscales: Happiness; Sadness; Anger; Disgust; Fear."
## [6081] "Factors: Interaction engagement; Respect for cultural difference; Interaction confidence; Interaction enjoyment; Interaction attentiveness."
## [6082] "Factors: Threat and fear; Understanding and support."
## [6083] "Factors: Denial of Prejudice; Affirmation of Differences."
## [6084] "Subscales: Incidental contacts; Social/financial contacts; Dual-relationship contacts."
## [6085] "Subscales: Voice Dominance; Voice Intrusiveness; Hearer Dependence; Hearer Distance."
## [6086] "Subscales: Effective nonviolent; Physically aggressive; Relationally aggressive."
## [6087] "Scales: Perceived benefit; Perceived barrier; Perceived self-efficacy; Competence in communication regarding Condom Use; Intimacy"
## [6088] "Factors: Caregiver-related risk factors; Child-related risk factors."
## [6089] "Subscales: Self-efficacy; Organization-based self-esteem; Satisfaction with life; Physical engagement; Emotional engagement; Cognitive engagement."
## [6090] "Subscales: Perceptual abnormalities; Bizarre experiences; Persecutory ideation."
## [6091] "Factors: COVID Danger and contamination; COVID Socioeconomic consequences; COVID Xenophobia; COVID Traumatic stress symptoms; COVID Compulsive checking."
## [6092] "Factors: Positive symptoms; Negative symptoms; Depressive symptoms."
## [6093] "Subscales: Customer orientation; Competitor orientation; Interfunctional coordination; Knowledge exchange; Knowledge combination; Environmental management system implementation; Corporate environmental performance."
## [6094] "Factors: Cognitive-Perceptual Deficits; Interpersonal Deficits; Disorganized/Oddness."
## [6095] "Subscales: Continuous improvement and renewal (CI); Openness and action orientation (OAO); Management quality (MQ); Employee quality (EQ); Long-term orientation (LTO)."
## [6096] "Subscales: Perceptions of uncivil/harmful comments; Willingness to engage in corrective action; Paying attention toward potentially uncivil discussions; Construing the situation as an emergency; Feeling responsible; Feeling able to intervene; Costs and benefits of intervening; Collective social identity; Group efficacy; Collective benefits; Knowledge of the rules and formal structure of #ibh."
## [6097] "Factors: Social harm; Conspiracy; Physical threat."
## [6098] "Factors: Drinking behaviors (DB); Parental intervention (PI); Low self-control (LSC); Accessibility of drinking (OPP)."
## [6099] "Factors: Evaluation of self; Regression; Enhancement of kinship; Social interaction; Destination pull factors; Cultural pull factors; Escape for travel."
## [6100] "Factors: Abusive supervision; Power distance orientation; Job satisfaction; Mental health problems; Physical health problems."
## [6101] "Dimensions: Workplace Spirituality; Organizational Commitment; Competitive Advantage. Constructs: Meaningfulness; Solidarity; Compliance to values of organization; Affective commitment; Continuance commitment; Occupational commitment; Unique merits; Stability; Maintainability; Opportunism."
## [6102] "Factors: Knowledge self-efficacy; Extrinsic rewards; Intrinsic rewards; Product innovation; Process innovation; Management innovation; Knowledge sharing behavior."
## [6103] "Factors: Social media use for vertical communication (SMUVC); Social media use for horizontal communication (SMUHC); Leader-member exchange (LMX); Team-member exchange (TMX); Task complexity (TC); Employee performance (EP)."
## [6104] "Constructs: Communication Functions; Collaboration Functions; Ganqing; Xinren; Project Commitment; Explicit Knowledge Sharing; Tacit Knowledge Sharing."
## [6105] "Factors: Medical Tasks; Instrumental Daily Tasks; Retrieval-Based Tasks."
## [6106] "Factors: Satisfaction with outcomes (SOs); Satisfaction with processes (SPs); Social self-regulated learning (SSRL); Lead userness (LU); Learning goal orientation (LGO); Social influence (SI)."
## [6107] "Constructs: Dialogue support; Primary task support; Perceived Credibility; Social support; Perceived Competence; Continuance Intention."
## [6108] "Subscales: Support/Guidance; Inspiration/Modeling."
## [6109] "Subscales: Transition; Action; Interpersonal."
## [6110] "Subscales: Active engagement; Perceptual abilities; Musical training; Singing abilities; Emotions."
## [6111] "Subscales: Knowledge Related to COVID-19; Attitude towards COVID-19; Risk perception related to COVID-19."
## [6112] "Factors: Perceived security; Security risk; Intention; Attitude; Perceived knowledge; Perceived usefulness; Trust; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control; Perceived ease of use; Government credibility."
## [6113] "Factors: [Knowledge and Attitudes domain] Knowledge; Personal Attitudes; Attitudes towards patient-healthcare provider."
## [6114] "Subscales: Vigor; Absorption; Dedication."
## [6115] "Factors: Performance expectancy (PE); Effort expectancy (EE); Social influence (SI); Facilitating condition (FC); Price value (PV); Hedonic motivation (HM); Perceived vulnerability (VUL); Perceived severity (PS); Behavioural intention (BI)."
## [6116] "Factors: Avoid femininity and be straight; Be self-reliant and persevere; Be tough and dominant; Sex is important; Be self-reliant through mechanical skills; Rigid expectations; Restrict emotions."
## [6117] "Factors: Perceived landscape (PB); Restorative experience (RES); Health perception (HP); Dispositional optimism (OPT). Variables: Physical landscape; Social landscape; Symbolic landscape; Current health perception; Health outlook; Specific physical health."
## [6118] "Subscales: Counseling; Research; Supervision and Training; Teaching and Training; Administration; Consultation; Writing and Editing; Professional Development (this subscale was added later, not included in original CPTI)."
## [6119] "Factors: Access to information; Reading; Understanding; Appraisal; Behavioral intention."
## [6120] "Subscales: Smoking susceptibility; Attitude toward smoking; Media messages about smoking."
## [6121] "Factors: Intention; Attitude; Subjective norm; Perceived behavioral control to identify; Intervene to address drug-related problems; Perceived moral obligation."
## [6122] "Factors: Clan Culture; Adhocracy Culture; Hierarchy Culture; Market Culture."
## [6123] "Factors: Alert/Cognition; Mood; Sleepiness."
## [6124] "Subscales [Factors]: Social Support [Parental support; Peer support]; Physical Environment [Accessibility of public recreation facilities; Accessibility of private sport providers; Convenience; Safety]."
## [6125] "Factors: PREPS-Preparedness; PREPS-Infection; PREPS-Positive Appraisal."
## [6126] "Subscales: Skills; Knowledge; Self-Efficacy; Expectation beliefs; Behavior."
## [6127] "Domains: Foundations of gender-affirming care; Health disparities and the specific needs of transgender patients; Hormone treatments for transgender patients."
## [6128] "Subscales: Treatment; Communication; End-of-Life Treatment."
## [6129] "Factors: Withdrawal symptoms; Mood modification; Conflict."
## [6130] "Factors: Socializing; Belonging."
## [6131] "Subscales: Nutrition; Physical activity; Self-monitoring of blood glucose; Foot care; Smoking."
## [6132] "Subscales: Male Body Shape Scale; Female Body Shape Scale."
## [6133] "Factors/Subscales: Isolation from Community (IC); Work from Home (WH); Family Contact (FC); and Protective Behaviors (PB)."
## [6134] "Scales: Personal and environmental affecting dietary fat intake behavior (Motivation (Outcome Expectancies); Positive Social Support; Negative Social Support); Personal factors affecting physical activity (Motivation (Outcome Expectancies); Benefits (Outcome Expectancies); Emotional Coping Response; Negative Mood Self-efficacy; Situational Self-efficacy); Environmental factors affecting physical activity (Accessibility (Physical Environment); Positive Social Support; Barriers (Situations)); Physical factors affecting stress management (Motivation (Outcome Expectancies); Benefits (Outcome Expectancies); Positive Emotional Coping; Negative Emotional Coping; Self-efficacy); Environmental factors affecting stress management (Accessibility (Physical Environment); Social Support; Barriers (Situation))."
## [6135] "Factors: Perceived product attributes (PA); Perceived risk (PR); Risk averseness (RA); Price quality inference (PQ); Awareness of societal consequences (ASC); Subjective norms (SN); Affordability-related perceptions (AF); Availability-related perceptions (AV); Accessibility-related perceptions (AC); Behavioral intention (BI)."
## [6136] "Domains: Nutrition; Social Support; Health Responsibility; Life Appreciation; Exercise; Stress Management."
## [6137] "Factors: Lifetime Perpetrator Physical & Psychological Violence (not partner or work); Childhood Target Physical & Psychological Peer/Team Violence; Lifetime Perpetrator Sexual Violence; Adult Target Psychological Violence Work, Messaging, Stalking; Childhood Target Sexual Violence; Adult Target and Perpetrator Violence related to Nature of Work or Civil/Political Unrest; Lifetime Target Physical and Psychological Dating/Partner Violence; Lifetime Target Family Physical Violence; Lifetime Perpetrator Stalking and Messaging; Adult Perpetrator Psychological Workplace Violence; Lifetime Perpetrator Physical Dating/Partner Violence."
## [6138] "Constructs: Body functions; Activities; Participation; Environmental factors; Personal factors."
## [6139] "Subscales: Sending sexts to a boyfriend/girlfriend (SF); Sending sexts to someone known in person (SK); Sending sexts to someone known only on the internet (SI); Posting or live-streaming pictographic content (PS); Asking for sexts from a boyfriend/girlfriend (AF); Asking for sexts from someone known in person (AK); Asking for sexts from someone known only on the internet (AI); Receiving sexts (R); Refusing to send a requested sext (RS)."
## [6140] "Factors: Self-efficacy of Community Network; Self-efficacy of Neighborhood Watch."
## [6141] "Factors: The cognition of factitious factors of haze formation; The cognition of natural factors of haze formation; The cognition of haze harmful effects on the human body; The cognition of haze health protection measures."
## [6142] "Factors: Mood management; Behavioral preoccupation."
## [6143] "The scale is unidimensional."
## [6144] "Factors: Physical power; Social power."
## [6145] "Factors: Visual Discomfort (VD); Head Discomfort (HD); Musculoskeletal Discomfort: Limb Pain (LP); Musculoskeletal Discomfort: NSB Pain (NSBP)."
## [6146] "Subscales: Materialism; Proactive financial coping; Green buying; Reduced consumption; Financial satisfaction; Life satisfaction; Psychological distress; Financial strain."
## [6147] "Factors: Positive Attitudes; Negative Attitudes."
## [6148] "Factors: Biomedical (BM); Biopsychosocial (BPS)."
## [6149] "Factors: Avoidance; Problem-Solving; Emotional Management."
## [6150] "Subscales: Household; Family; Friends; Community."
## [6151] "Subscales: Support from Partner/Family Live With; Support from Family Outside the Home; Support from Friends; Support from Community."
## [6152] "Domains (Factors): Shopping-specific (Shopping atmosphere; Store service orientation; Merchandise); Destination-specific (Affordability; K-pop culture/media; Safety; Accessibility; Government promotion; Attraction)."
## [6153] "Subscales: Cocreation; Emotions; Experiential value; Flexibility; Knowledge gain/learning; Memory; Personalized; Recommend."
## [6154] "Subscales: Positive relational schema (PRS); Negative relational schema (NRS)."
## [6155] "Factors: Satisfaction with an emotion-focused relationship (Factor 1); Satisfaction with a behavior-focused relationship (Factor 2)."
## [6156] "Factors: Diffusion of intimate images through mobile devices; Diffusion of intimate images through social networks."
## [6157] "Subscales: Attention; Verbal learning and memory; Executive functions/language; Orientation."
## [6158] "Subscales: Network Diversity; Upper Reachability; Tie Strength."
## [6159] "Factors: Problem Focused Coping; Avoidance; Emotion Focused Coping."
## [6160] "Factors: Psychomotor agitation; Mixity without psychomotor agitation."
## [6161] "Subscales: Seeking Distraction; Withdrawal; Actively Approaching; Seeking Social Support; Ignoring."
## [6162] "Factors: Perceived susceptibility to HIV (PSu); Perceived severity of HIV (PSe)."
## [6163] "Subscales: Reflectivity; Negative Expectation."
## [6164] "Factors: General-Controllability; Negative-Usefulness; Positive-Usefulness."
## [6165] "Factors: Specific-Necessity; Specific-Concerns; General-Overuse; General-Harm."
## [6166] "Factors: Temptation; Foodie; Overthinking; Impulsivity; Social."
## [6167] "Subscales: Past Negative (PN); Past Positive (PP); Present Hedonistic (PH); Present-Fatalistic (PF); Future (FU)."
## [6168] "Factors: Cognitive and affective aspects; Cognitive and behavioral aspects; Affective and behavioral aspects."
## [6169] "Factors: Internalization-Pressure; Internalization-Information Seeking; Internalization-Athlete; Information."
## [6170] "Subscales: Speech movement self-consciousness; Public consciousness of speech content; Speech manner; Speech movement."
## [6171] "Subscales: Affective Instability; Emotional Reactivity; Interpersonal Sensitivity."
## [6172] "Subscales: Emotional support; Division of responsibility and housework; Child-rearing; Decision making and financial management; Cohesion."
## [6173] "Factors: Communicative health literacy (Factor 1); Critical health literacy-trust and efficacy (Factor 2); Critical health literacy information-seeking (Factor 3)."
## [6174] "Factors: Antagonism; Agency; Planfulness."
## [6175] "Factors: Group self-value (Factor 1); Self-categorization (Factor 2); Group self-evaluation (Factor 3)."
## [6176] "Subscales: Disorders of initiating and maintaining sleep; Sleep breathing disorders; Disorders of arousal/nightmares; Sleep wake transition disorders; Disorders of excessive somnolence; Sleep hyperhidrosis."
## [6177] "Factors: Cognitive Problems; Oppositional; Hyperactivity-Impulsivity; Anxious/Shy; Perfectionism; Social Problems; Psychosomatic."
## [6178] "Subscales: Defiance (KG); Cognitive Problems-Inattention (BP-D); Hyperactivity (H:); Anxiety-Shyness (K-U); Perfectionism (M); Social Problems (SP); Psychosomatic (P)."
## [6179] "Subscales: Thinking and planning for the future; Positive future design/optimism; Being innovative; Managing the future."
## [6180] "Subscales: Anxious Uncertainty; Dysregulated Anger; Despondence; Self-Disturbance; Behavior Dysregulation; Affective Dysregulation; Fragility; Dissociative Tendencies; Distrustfulness; Manipulativeness; Oppositional; Rashness."
## [6181] "Subscales: Anxious uncertainty; Dysregulated anger; Despondence; Self-disturbance; Behavioral dysregulation; Affective dysregulation; Fragility; Dissociative tendencies distrust; Manipulativeness; Ooppositionality; Rashness."
## [6182] "Factors: Incomplete experiences [Gerçekleştirilememiş yaşantılar]; Unresolved conflicts [Çözümlenmemiş çatışmalar]."
## [6183] "Subscales: Self-Kindness; Self-Criticism; Common Humanity; Self-Isolation; Mindfulness; Over-Identification."
## [6184] "Subscales: Bullying; Victimization; Witnessing."
## [6185] "Subscales: Empowerment; Servitude; Accountability; Courage; Authenticity; Humility; Stewardship; Corporate social responsibility to employees; Firm innovativeness."
## [6186] "Subscales: Exposure to trauma; Reexperiencing the trauma; Avoidance of trauma-related stimuli; Negative thoughts or feelings; Trauma-related arousal and reactivity."
## [6187] "Subscales: Beliefs regarding Technoference; Technoference."
## [6188] "Subscales: Trait anger; Anger expression; Anger in; Anger control."
## [6189] "Factors: Intemperate behavior; Narcissistic behavior; Self-promoting behavior; Humiliating behavior."
## [6190] "Factors: Anger Expression; Anger Control."
## [6191] "Subscales: Apathy; Social disconnectedness; Disruptive behavior; Picking up the slack; Work quality."
## [6192] "Subscales: Emotional difficulties; Behavioral difficulties."
## [6193] "Factors: Unconditional positivity; Anticipated annoyance; Contingent willingness."
## [6194] "Factors: Long-term orientation (LZO); Short-term orientation (KZO)."
## [6195] "Subscales: Choosing virtual life; Impairment in functionality; Virtual pleasure."
## [6196] "Factors: Interpersonal (F1); Self (F2)."
## [6197] "Subscales: Participative; Attuning; Guiding; Clarifying; Demanding; Domineering; Abandoning; Awaiting; Relatedness support."
## [6198] "Subscales: Rejection; Beliefs; Stigma; Familiarity."
## [6199] "Subscales: Customer and competitor information; Company (internal) capabilities and resources information; Social and political information; Economic information; Competitor Information; Customer Information; Supplier Information; Company (Internal) Information; Technology Information; Social, Political, and Economic Information."
## [6200] "Factors: General factor of vaccine readiness; Complacency; Calculation; Collective responsibility; Compliance; Conspiracy."
## [6201] "Subscales: Diminish/Avoid; Approach/Encourage."
## [6202] "Factors: Core Determinism; Category Determinism; Polygenism; Genetic Essentialism (general factor)."
## [6203] "Factors: Scope of scanning - Operating Environment (Customer and competitor information, Supplier information, Company [internal] information; General Environment (Social and political information, Economic information). Frequency of scanning - Competitor Information (5 variables); Customer Information (3 variables); Supplier Information (3 variables); Company (Internal) Information (6 variables); Technology Information (2 variables); Social, Political, and Economic Information (8 variables)."
## [6204] "Scales: Controlled Motivation; Autonomous Motivation. Subscales: External Motivation; Introjected Motivation; Identified Motivation; Integrated Motivation; Intrinsic Motivation."
## [6205] "Subscales: Statements on tonal approach; Statements on positional approach."
## [6206] "Factors: College attendance; College persistence."
## [6207] "Factors: Attendance; Persistence."
## [6208] "Subscales: Self-Promotion (SP); Resume/CV preparation (CV); Securing a Recommendation (LOR); Standardized Test Preparation (STP)."
## [6209] "Factors: Ability and achievement discrepancy; Standard discrepancy; Effort discrepancy."
## [6210] "Subscales: Perceived Parental Expectation (PPE); Perceived Self-Performance (PSP); Living up to Parental Expectation (LPE). Factors: Personal Maturity; Academic Achievement; Dating Concerns."
## [6211] "Subscales: Memory support strategies that promote constructive learning behavior; Memory support strategies that do not promote constructive learning behavior."
## [6212] "Factors: Turnover Intention; Passion; Career Commitment; Job Self-Efficacy; Social Support; Self-Centered Leadership."
## [6213] "Factors: Individual-Oriented Reasons; Family/Achievement-Oriented Reasons; Adult-Imposed Reasons; Social-Oriented Reasons."
## [6214] "Subscales: Positive; Negative."
## [6215] "Factors: Behavior and Character Change; Guilt and Loss of Function; Anxiety."
## [6216] "Factors: Disclosure; Self-censorship."
## [6217] "Subscales: Refusal to avoid stimuli provoking negative affectivity; Refusal to avoid aversive social or assessment situations; Refusal to call parents' attention; Refusal to obtain tangible positive rewards."
## [6218] "Subscales: Positive; Negative."
## [6219] "Factors: Individual use; Guilt; Impact on others."
## [6220] "Subscales: Effort over the preceding week; Well-being over the last week; Cognitive engagement; Behavioral engagement; Social motivations; Academic motivations."
## [6221] "Subscales: Accessibility and walking facilities (AW); Traffic safety (TS); Pedestrian infrastructure and safety (PI); Safety from crime (CR); Aesthetics (AE)."
## [6222] "Factors: Safety climate; Risk avoidance; Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) constructs (Safety attitudes; Safety intentions; Safety control; Safety norm)."
## [6223] "Subscales: Terminal value; Instrumental value; Green attitude; Green behavioral intentions."
## [6224] "Factors: Environmental concern; Environmental knowledge; Peer influence; Green purchase intention; Perceived value; Green attitude; Government and NGOs initiatives."
## [6225] "Subscales: Person-vocation (P–V) fit (value congruence); Person-organization (P–O) fit (needs–supplies); P–O fit (value congruence); Person-group (P–G) fit (value congruence); Person-job (P–J) fit (demands–abilities); P–J fit (needs–supplies); Bridge employment intention; Full Retirement Intention."
## [6226] "Factors: Physical Neglect (Factor 1); Physical and Psychological Abuse (Factor 2); Psychological Neglect (Factor 3)."
## [6227] "Subscales: Patient competencies; Nursing competencies; Organization competencies; Scholarship competencies."
## [6228] "Subscales: Behavioral awareness (BA); Valued action (VA); Openness to experience (OE)."
## [6229] "Subscales: Socio-Emotional Support; Student-Focused Attention and Responsiveness to Student Needs; Classroom Management; Instructional Practices."
## [6230] "Subscales: Well-being-5; Social potency-5; Achievement-5; Social closeness-5; Stress reaction-5; Alienation-5; Aggression-5; Control-5; Harm avoidance-5; Traditionalism-5; Absorption-5; Positive Emotionality (PEM-20); Negative Emotionality (NEM-15); Constraint (CON-15)."
## [6231] "Factors: Autonomous motivation (AUT); Introjected regulation (IJ); External regulation (EXT); Amotivation (AM)."
## [6232] "Dimensions: Demythicizing homosexuality; Acceptance of homosexuality; Familiarity with homosexuality. Subdimensions: Acceptance of intimate relationships; Acceptance of social relationships; Acceptance of interpersonal relationships; Understanding of categories; Understanding of definitions."
## [6233] "Subscales: History continuity; Culture continuity."
## [6234] "Factors: Culture; History."
## [6235] "Subscales: Public collective action; Private collective action."
## [6236] "Domains: Cognition; Mobility; Self-care; Getting along; Life activities; Participation."
## [6237] "Factors: Sadism; Psychopathy; Narcissism; Machiavellianism. Subscales: Crafty; Special; Wild; Mean."
## [6238] "Constructs: Machiavellianism; Narcissism; Psychopathy; Sadism."
## [6239] "Factors: Interpersonal orientation; Professional knowledge; Moral conflict; Moral meaning."
## [6240] "Subscales: Interpersonal awareness (IA); Interpersonal skills (IS)."
## [6241] "Subscales: Safety; Growth."
## [6242] "Factors: Pay; Status; Hours; Temporary work; Field; Poverty wage employment."
## [6243] "Subscales: Ethics in research; Encountered research misconduct during the course of one's academic studies; Inclination to fabricate data; Inclination to select or omit data; Knowledge of research misconduct in the workplace."
## [6244] "Factors: Fluent disorganization; Speech emptiness; Speech peculiarity."
## [6245] "Factors: Emotional engagement; Cognitive engagement; School compliance; Behavioral engagement (Participation)."
## [6246] "Factors: Friends' pressure; Social costs; Communication; Shared commitment to safe driving."
## [6247] "Factors: Friend pressure; Social costs; Communication; Shared commitment to safe driving."
## [6248] "Factors: Boldness; Disinhibition; Meanness."
## [6249] "Subscales: Coherent structure of knowledge (SK_1); Hierarchical structure of knowledge (SK_2); Justification of knowledge and knowing (JK); Changeability of knowledge (CK); Quick learning (QL); Source of knowledge (Source)."
## [6250] "Subscales: Vigor (VI); Dedication (DE); Absorption (AB)."
## [6251] "Subscales: Active engagement in education research; Reasons for using education research; Culture of using research; Barriers to using education research; Facets of the dismissal of research."
## [6252] "Subscales: Meanness; Boldness; Disinhibition."
## [6253] "Factors: Moral justification; Euphemistic language; Advantageous comparison; Dissemination of the responsibility; Displacement of the responsibility; Distortion of consequences; Dehumanization; Attribution of blame."
## [6254] "Factors: Grandiose-Manipulative (Subscales: Dishonest charm, Grandiosity, Lying, Manipulation); Callous-Unemotional (Subscales: Callousness, Unemotionality, Remorselessness); Impulsive-Irresponsible (Subscales: Impulsiveness, Thrill-seeking, Irresponsibility)."
## [6255] "Dimensions: Grandiose-manipulative (interpersonal); Callous-unemotional (affective); Impulsive-irresponsible (behavioral)."
## [6256] "Subscales: Blame attribution; Prognostic optimism; Need for continuing care; Social distance; Attribution."
## [6257] "Dimensions: Availability to oneself and the environment; Letting go; Relative passivity towards the world; Acceptance of change."
## [6258] "Subscales: Deontology-Virtue; Egoism; Utilitarianism; Self-Abnegation"
## [6259] "Subscales: Affective; Interpersonal; Somatic."
## [6260] "Factors: Anger perception; Exploring the cause of anger; Self-preparation; Communication skills."
## [6261] "Subtests: Communication and trust (CaT); Collaboration in care (CiC)."
## [6262] "Subscales: Body Dissatisfaction; Binge Eating; Cognitive Restraint; Excessive Exercise; Restricting; Purging; Muscle Building; Negative Attitudes Toward Obesity."
## [6263] "Subscales: General POLST knowledge; Resuscitation; Medical Interventions; Artificial Nutrition."
## [6264] "Factors: General 9/11 conspiracist beliefs; Governmental cover-up of a 9/11 conspiracy."
## [6265] "Factors: Coping; Catastrophizing."
## [6266] "Subscales: Catastrophizing (CAT); Coping (COP)."
## [6267] "Factors: Perceived barriers; Perceived benefits."
## [6268] "Factor structure: Unidimensional."
## [6269] "Subscales: Beauty; Bravery; Creativity; Curiosity; Fairness; Forgiveness; Gratitude; Honesty; Hope; Humility; Humor; Judgment; Kindness; Leadership; Love; Love of learning; Perseverance; Perspective; Prudence; Self-regulation; Social intelligence; Spirituality; Teamwork; Zest. Factors: Cognitive; Interpersonal; Vigor; Transcendence."
## [6270] "Factors: Innovativeness; Risk-taking; Proactiveness; Competitiveness; Achievement orientation; Learning orientation."
## [6271] "Subscales: Feelings about the father; Mother's support for relationship with the father; Father involvement perception; Physical relationship with the father; Father-mother relationship; Conceptions of God as father; Conceptions of father's influence; Mother's relationship with her father; Father's relationship with his father. Factors: Relationship with the father; Beliefs about the father; Intergenerational family influences."
## [6272] "Subscales: Relationship; Patient focus."
## [6273] "Factors: Internal Shame (IS); External Shame (ES)."
## [6274] "Subscales: Positive metacognitive beliefs; Negative metacognitive beliefs; Confidence; Control; Conscience."
## [6275] "Factors: Pros; Cons."
## [6276] "Factors: General Conspiracist Beliefs."
## [6277] "Factors: General 9/11 conspiracist beliefs; Governmental cover-up of a 9/11 conspiracy."
## [6278] "Factors: Public-sphere PEB; Resource/waste PEB; Purchasing/food PEB."
## [6279] "Factors: Fears before death - Fear of the dying process; Fear of premature death; Fear of the dead; Fear for significant others; Fear of conscious death; Fears after death - Fear of being destroyed; Fear of the unknown; Fear of the body after death."
## [6280] "Factors: Maleficence; Lack of Planning; Risk-Taking; Distractibility; Impulsive Decision-Making; Law-Breaking."
## [6281] "Subscales: adaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies (aERS); maladaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies (mERS)."
## [6282] "Subscales: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; Intellect."
## [6283] "Factors: Proactive Overt Aggression (POA); Proactive Relational Aggression (PRA); Reactive Overt Aggression (ROA); Reactive Relational Aggression (RAR)."
## [6284] "Factors: Spontaneous instability; Vulnerable responsiveness; Disruptive emotion/behavior."
## [6285] "Subscales: Social concerns; Cognitive interference; Physiological hyperarousal; Task irrelevant behaviors; Worry; Facilitating anxiety."
## [6286] "Subscales: Applying Decision Rules (ADR); Consistency in Risk Perceptions (CRP); Resistance to Framing (RF); Under/Overconfidence (UOC)."
## [6287] "Factors: Benefit; Damage; Inefficacy Exposure; Effort."
## [6288] "Subscales: Visual; Auditory; Audio-Visual."
## [6289] "Factors: Relationship Satisfaction (RS); Social Support (SS)."
## [6290] "Factors: Cost control engagement; Organizational cost culture; Managerial cost incentives; Profit orientation; Sales force cost mirroring; Cost-related sales performance."
## [6291] "Factors: Tolerance; Protection; Proximity; Competence."
## [6292] "Categories: Physical functioning; Social-emotional aspects."
## [6293] "Subscales: Mood; Cognition; Behavior; Somatic complaints; Ideas or acts of suicidality."
## [6294] "Subscales: Interpersonal Relationship (BWSQ-IR); Sexual Dysfunction (BWSQ-SD); Body Image (BWSQ-BI); Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (BWSQ-PTSC)."
## [6295] "Subscales: Sharing information; Seeking information; Revising the plan; Enacting the plan"
## [6296] "Domains: Multidisciplinary nature of pain; Pain Assessment and measurement; Management of pain; Clinical conditions; Regulatory considerations."
## [6297] "Factors: Social Networking (SN); Commercial Transactional (CT); Hedonic Value (HV); Utilitarian Value (UV); Customer Loyalty (CL); Word-of-Mouth (WOM)."
## [6298] "Factors: Attitude toward consumer marketing programs; Attitude toward supplier salesperson; Attitude toward salesperson reward program; Brand extra role behaviors; Brand identification; Customer orientation; Subjective Norms"
## [6299] "Factors: Positive ethnic–racial identity (ERI) affect; Negative ethnic–racial identity (ERI) affect."
## [6300] "Factors: Positive belief factors; Negative belief factors; Attitudes toward fashion Advertising (ATFA); Behavior toward advertising (BEH); Fashion Consciousness (FC). Subscales: Product Information; Social role; Entertainment; Good for Fashion Ind.; Materialism; Value Corruption; Falsity; Intrapersonal subscale (religious commitment)."
## [6301] "Factors: Arousal and Hyper-Reactivity (ARH); Fearful Attachment (FA); Intrusion and Re-Experiencing (I); Avoidance and Negative Cognition and Mood (AVN)."
## [6302] "Subscales: Resistance to framing; Under/overconfidence; Applying decision rules; Consistency in risk perception."
## [6303] "Factors: Birth-related symptoms (BRS); General symptoms (GS)."
## [6304] "Subscales: Fine shape discrimination; Shape ratio discrimination; Dot lattices; Radial Frequency Patterns; Global motion detection; Kinetic object segmentation; Biological motion; Dot counting; Figure-ground segmentation; Embedded figure detection; Recognition of missing part; Object recognition in a scene."
## [6305] "Subscales: Self-awareness; Self-management; Social awareness; Relationship management; Responsible decision-making."
## [6306] "Subscales: Social contact; Social criticism; Performance; Physical appearance; Physical ability; Global self-esteem."
## [6307] "Subscales: Social contact; Social criticism; Performance; Physical appearance; Physical ability; Global self-esteem."
## [6308] "Factors: Inpatient treatment planning; Outpatient treatment planning; Group programming; Milieu."
## [6309] "Subscales: Affections; Worries; States; Health concerns."
## [6310] "Components: Family history of substance abuse; Personal history of substance abuse; Psychiatric Disorders."
## [6311] "Scales (Factors): Trust (Trust in Autonomous Vehicle Performance; Trust in Regulations and Standards; Trust in Manufacturers and Developers); Perceived Risk (Performance Risk; Privacy and Security Risk); Intention to Ride in an Autonomous Vehicle."
## [6312] "Factors: interactivity; presence; flow"
## [6313] "Factors: Personal justification; Justification by multiple sources; Justification by authority."
## [6314] "Subscales: Gameful Experience-accomplishment; Gameful Experience-challenge; Gameful Experience-playfulness; Collaboration-group cohesiveness; Collaboration-group efficacy; Collaboration-group effectiveness; Collaboration-social experience; Motivation-immersion; Motivation-intrinsic motivation; Motivation-extrinsic motivation."
## [6315] "Subscales: Affect during wear; Affect when unable to wear."
## [6316] "Subscales: Traffic Violations (F1); Riding Errors (F2); Positive Behaviors (F3)."
## [6317] "Subscales: Traffic Violations (F1); Riding Errors (F2); Positive Behaviors (F3)."
## [6318] "Subscales: Enacted Stigma; Internalized Stigma."
## [6319] "Factors: Seguridad física (Seg); Normas (Nor); Relación alumnado-profesorado (Alpro); Relación entre iguales (Igu); Cohesión de grupo (Coh); Aspectos ambientales-estructurales (Amb); Capacidad motivación del profesorado (Moti); Evaluación (Eva); Percepción expectativas del profesorado (Exp); Recursos metodológicos (Rec)."
## [6320] "Subscales: Distorted Form Quality (FQ–); Weighted sum of the six cognitive Special Scores (WSum6); Critical Contents; Distorted Human Movement responses (M–); Good-to-Poor Human Representational variable (HRV)."
## [6321] "Factors: Desire for Control (DFC); Driver Locus of Control (DLOC); Attitude toward AV (ATD); Intention to Use AV (INT); Power Distance (POD)."
## [6322] "Constructs: Personal innovativeness; Subjective norm; Environmental consciousness; Price consciousness; Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Perceived safety risk; Perceived privacy security; Perceived value; Word-of-mouth; Purchase intention."
## [6323] "Factors: Work; Beliefs related to Work; Physical activity."
## [6324] "Factors: Nonpharmacological treatment/care; Monitor and manage common problems; Causes of OA and pharmacological treatment; Medical staff support and surgery-related concerns; Help patients adapt and get along."
## [6325] "Factors: Rationale for participation; Perception of learning experience; Approach to develop; Competency development; Personality attribute. Subfactors: Self-directed; Externally Driven; Involuntary."
## [6326] "Subscales: Catheter function and concern; Lifestyle impact."
## [6327] "Subscales: Diminished visual perception; Altered visual perception; Ocular discomfort."
## [6328] "Subscales: Family; Friends; Significant Others."
## [6329] "Subscales: Attraction to the Group (ATG)-Social; ATG-Task; Group Integration (GI)-Social; GI-Task."
## [6330] "Subscales: Calling orientation; Critical insight; Continuous learning; Collaboration; Cohesiveness; Challenge drive."
## [6331] "Subscales: Limitations; Hassles/Burdens; Psychological Impact (Positive); Psychological Impact (Negative)."
## [6332] "Factors: Denial of negative emotions; Resistance to change."
## [6333] "Factors: Denial of negative emotions; Resistance to change; Conscious avoidance."
## [6334] "Factors: Play as a Game; Play as Goofing Around"
## [6335] "Factors: Hygiene Concern; Social Relationships; Hygiene Help-Seeking."
## [6336] "Subscales: Cognitive associations; Behavioral associations; Life legacy; Life momentum; Defining past; Clear goals; Value engagement."
## [6337] "Sections: Knowledge; Attitude; Practice."
## [6338] "Factors: Self-confidence; Attitude towards Predict-Observe-Explain (POE); Critical attitude."
## [6339] "Factors: Credible content delivery; Co-creation; Responsiveness; Brand advocacy; Purchase intentions."
## [6340] "Factors: Yi (righteousness); Zhi (wisdom); Zhong Xin (loyalty and trustworthiness); Ren (benevolence); Xiao (filial piety); Li (propriety); Qian (humility)."
## [6341] "Scales: Digital Competence; Digital Informal Learning; Academic Performance. Factors: Technical skills (TS); Cognitive skills (CS); Ethical knowledge (EK); Cognitive learning (CL); Metacognitive learning (MCL); Social and motivational learning (SML)."
## [6342] "Scales: Classroom Practices; School Atmosphere. Factors: Rules; Student Support; Student Involvement; Positive Teaching; Encouragement; Class Management; Student Relations; Student–Teacher Relations; Educational Climate; Sense of Belonging; Interpersonal Justice."
## [6343] "Factors: Affirmed Gender; Dysphoria."
## [6344] "Factors: Challenge-focused encouragement (CFE); Potential-focused encouragement (PFE)."
## [6345] "Factors (Subscales): Giftedness (Intellectual Ability; Academic Ability; Creativity; Artistic Talent; Leadership Ability); Motivation."
## [6346] "Factors: Perseverance of effort; Consistency of interests; Adaptability to situations."
## [6347] "Subscales: Physical; Psychological; Social relationships; Environment; Spiritual."
## [6348] "Subscales: Reliability; Emotional; Honesty."
## [6349] "Subscales: Past Positive; Past Negative; Present Positive; Present Negative; Future Positive; Future Negative."
## [6350] "Subscales: Past Positive; Past Negative; Present Positive; Present Negative; Future Positive; Future Negative."
## [6351] "Subscales: Contamination; Personal economic consequences; Societal functioning; Personal health."
## [6352] "Subscales: Family honor; Social honor; Masculine honor; Feminine honor."
## [6353] "Factors: Commitment; Control; Challenge."
## [6354] "Factors: Family honor concerns; Integrity concerns; Masculine honor concerns; Feminine honor concerns."
## [6355] "Categories: Site information; Telehealth, general; Telehealth, skills group; Telehealth, individual treatment; Telehealth, solutions; Telehealth, patient acceptability; Telehealth, opinions; Telehealth, future plans; Demographic and professional discipline."
## [6356] "Factors: Black Sensitivity and Willingness to Report Pain; Asian Sensitivity and Willingness to Report Pain; White Sensitivity and Willingness to Report Pain."
## [6357] "Factors: Vaginal dryness; Blood loss; Fatigue; Devaluation; Avoidance; Sexual self-image; Sexual drive; Partner conflict; Dependence; Embarrassment; Social isolation; Quality of work"
## [6358] "Factors: Health Knowledge Learning Intention (HKLI); Perceived Severity (PSV); Perceptual Susceptibility (PSC); Self-efficacy (SE); Perceived Benefits (PB); Health Anxiety (HA); e-Health Literacy (EHL)."
## [6359] "Subscales: Verbal aggression; Aggression against property; Autoaggression; Physical aggression."
## [6360] "Factors: Intensified Affection (IA); Withheld Affection (WA); No Deceptive Affection (NDA)."
## [6361] "Factors: Core grief; Culturally specific symptoms."
## [6362] "Sections: Awareness (knowledge); Attitude; Anxiety; Perceived mental health care needs during the pandemic of the novel coronavirus."
## [6363] "Factors: General factor; Positive; Negative; Disorganization."
## [6364] "Factors: Cultural membership; Cultural integration; Scientific learning; Artistic learning; Adaptive learning; Participative learning; Academic progress; Research Progress. Subscales: Sense of belonging; Learning strategies; Perception of progress."
## [6365] "Factors: Work factor; Personal factor; Role factor."
## [6366] "Subscales: Recruitment and Selection; Training and Development; Employment Security; Performance Management; Participation in Decision Making; Job Design; Employee Autonomy."
## [6367] "Factors: Perceived Courtesy Stigma (CS); Affiliate Stigma (AS)."
## [6368] "Factors: Mastery Motivational Climate; Performance Motivational Climate."
## [6369] "Subscales: Performance orientation; Performance motivational climate; Mastery orientation; Mastery motivational climate."
## [6370] "Subscales: Flexible Thinking; Openness-Ideas; Openness-Values; Absolutism; Dogmatism; Categorical Thinking; Superstitious Thinking; Counterfactual Thinking; Outcome Bias; Social Desirability Response Bias. Factor: Composite Actively Open-Minded Thinking."
## [6371] "Subscales: Performance; Gender roles; Recruitment and retention; Career; Emotionality."
## [6372] "Factors: Using the Nursing Process; Applying evidence to improve practice; Connecting with community; Leveraging the school and family team."
## [6373] "Factors: Student engagement; Instructional strategies; Classroom management."
## [6374] "Factors: Sources of potential social support recognized by nurses; Information from nurses regarding CHD/PCI rehabilitation; Recommendation from nurses on illness management; Advice from nurses on stress management; Encouragement from nurses to take more control of one's own health."
## [6375] "Subscales: Barriers (BAR); Susceptibility and Severity (SUS/SEV); Self-efficacy (SE); Benefits (BEN)."
## [6376] "Factors: Self-efficacy for infant care; Self-efficacy for parental role."
## [6377] "Factors: Blood Cancer and Sports; Bone Tumors and Sports; Cerebral Tumors and Sports; General Information on Cancer and Sports; Mass Media Information on Oncology and Sports; General Information about Sports"
## [6378] "Factors: Perceived safety and support; Internal and environmental motivation."
## [6379] "Factors: Yoga; Benefits of yoga; Inclusive sport; Teacher training; Sport."
## [6380] "Factors: Psychological assault; Physical attack; Sexual coercion."
## [6381] "Scales: Entrepreneurial performance; Cognitive trust; Affective trust; Entrepreneurial orientation. Subfactors: Innovation; Risk-taking; Proactive-ness."
## [6382] "Factors: Sexual Pleasure; Sexual Curiosity; Fantasy; Boredom Avoidance; Lack of Sexual Satisfaction; Emotional Distraction or Suppression; Stress Reduction; Self-Exploration."
## [6383] "Subscales: Neutral Praise; Person Praise; Process Praise; Mindset-Implicit theory of intelligence (ITI); Mindset-Implicit theory of giftedness (ITG); Academic motivation-Trying; Academic motivation-Avoidance."
## [6384] "Factors: Monitoring Behaviors; Controlling Behaviors; Demeaning Behaviors; Threatening and Aggressive Behaviors; Jealous and Possessive Behaviors."
## [6385] "Subscales: Physical aggression against mother; Physical aggression against father; Psychological aggression against mother; Psychological aggression against father; Economic aggression against mother; Economic aggression against father."
## [6386] "Factors: Verbal/social aggression; Physical aggression."
## [6387] "Factors: Favorable beliefs about learning; Favorable beliefs about transversal skills; Unfavorable beliefs about digital technologies."
## [6388] "Factors: Agency; Pathways."
## [6389] "Subscales: Self-discipline; Impulsivity."
## [6390] "Factors: Child Version: Emotional parentification towards parents; Instrumental parentification towards parents; Sense of injustice; Satisfaction with the role. Adolescents with Siblings Version: Emotional parentification towards parents; Instrumental parentification towards parents; Sense of injustice; Satisfaction with the role; Emotional parentification towards siblings; Instrumental parentification towards siblings."
## [6391] "Factors: Game access; Active engagement with the activities; Social speech generated from playing the game"
## [6392] "Factors:Social acceptability; Usefulness; Usability."
## [6393] "Subscales: Accepting the Past (ACPAST); Reminiscing about the Past (REM)"
## [6394] "Factors: Challenge/Control (CH/CO); Curiosity (CU); Career Outlook (CA)."
## [6395] "Subscales: Detached; Uncommitted; Unempathic; Uncaring; Lack Persistence; Unreliable; Reckless; Restless; Disruptive; Aggressive; Suspicious; Lacks Concentration; Intolerant; Inflexible; Lacks pain; Antagonistic; Domineering; Deceitful; Manipulate; Insincere; Garrulous; Lacks anxiety; Lacks pleasure; Lacks emotional depth; Lacks emotional stability; Lacks remorse; Self-centered; Self-aggrandizing; Uniqueness; Entitlement; Invulnerable; Self-justifying; Self-concept."
## [6396] "Factors: Laziness, problems and self-control skills; Assertiveness and ability to say \"no\"; Problem-solving skills; Decision-making skills."
## [6397] "Subscales: Space and Furnishings; Health and Safety; Activities; Interactions; Program Structure; Staff Development; Special Needs."
## [6398] "Subscales: Empathic concern; Internal distress; Fantasy; Perspective taking."
## [6399] "Subscales: Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS); Recall of Pictures Test (RPT)-immediate learning; RPT-delayed recall; RPT-recognition; Enhanced Cued Recall (ECR); Picture naming; Animal verbal fluency (VF); Supermarket fluency (SF); Color Trails Test (CTT); Five Digit Test (FDT 1; FDT 2; FDT 3; FDT 4); Serial threes; Copying of simple figures; Semicomplex figure copy; Clock Drawing Test (CDT); Clock Reading Test (CRT)."
## [6400] "Factors: Language Comprehension; Language Production."
## [6401] "Subscales: Achievement Thoughts (AT): Achievement Behaviours (AB)."
## [6402] "Subscales: Behavior management (BM); Instructional management (BM)."
## [6403] "Subscales: Diffusion; Foreclosure; Moratorium; Achievement."
## [6404] "Subscales: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); Social phobia (SP); Separation anxiety disorder (SAD); Major depressive disorder/dysthymia (MDD/dysthymia); Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder of the inattentive type (ADHD-I); Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder of the hyperactivity-impulsive type (ADHD-HI); Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); Conduct disorder (CD); Functional impairment."
## [6405] "Subscales: General fear of intimacy (GFoI); Past relationships fear of intimacy (PRFoI). Factors: General fear of intimacy (GFoI); General fear of intimacy Reversed Items (GFoIR); Past relationships fear of intimacy (PRFoI)."
## [6406] "Factors: Antihierarchical aggression; Anticonventionalism; Top-Down Censorship"
## [6407] "Dimensions: Understanding; Validation; Care."
## [6408] "Factors: Activities that require physical effort; Activities that require little or no physical effort."
## [6409] "Dimensions: Home culture orientations; Host culture orientations."
## [6410] "Factors: Factor 1 - Inevitability scale items; Factors 2 & 3 - Distractors"
## [6411] "Factors: Weight as a barrier to living; Food as Control; Weight-stigma."
## [6412] "Scales: Control-Centered Cyberabuse; Damage-Centered Cyberabuse."
## [6413] "Factors: Severity of ADA symptoms; ADA frequency and coping behaviors."
## [6414] "Factors: Psychological cognitive; Physical; External."
## [6415] "Factors: Health; COVID-19 Job Search Constraints; Job Search Hope; Reflective Metacognitive Activities; COVID-19 Invulnerability; Job Search Distress; Job Search Behaviors."
## [6416] "Factors: Recreation; Social interaction; Competition; Violent reward; Cognitive development; Customization; Coping; Fantasy."
## [6417] "Domains: Attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder–inattentive type (ADHD-I); ADHD–hyperactive=impulsive type (ADHD-H); Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); Conduct disorder (CD); Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); Separation anxiety disorder (SAD); Social phobia (SP); Major depressive episode (MDE); Functional impairment."
## [6418] "Factors: Negative Impact; Emotional Coping; Uncontrolled Behavior; Post-Sex Regret; Increased Interest."
## [6419] "Factors: Others-Awareness; Self-Awareness; Courage; Responsiveness."
## [6420] "Subscales [Factors]: Exposure [COVID-19 experiences; Access to essentials; Disruptions to living conditions; Loss of income; Family caregiving and activities; Designation as an essential worker]; Impact [Personal well-being; Family interactions; Distress]."
## [6421] "Subscales: Implementing ICT-Integrated Science Instruction (implementing); Ethics in ICT-Integrated Science Instruction (ethics); Proficiency in ICT-Integrated Science Instruction (proficiency); Designing Materials for ICT-Integrated Science Instruction (designing); Planning ICT-Integrated Science Instruction (planning)."
## [6422] "Factors: Intrinsic motivation; Self-efficacy; Self-regulation; Perseverance; Conscientiousness; Behavioral engagement; Cognitive engagement; Cooperation; Resilience; Attention; Extrinsic motivation; Proactive behaviour/drive; Critical thinking; Creativity/openness; Emotional engagement; Well-being; Self-esteem; Outcome expectations; Empathy."
## [6423] "Factors: Abusive Leadership; Supportive Leadership; Interpersonal Justice; Athletic Commitment; Athletic Satisfaction."
## [6424] "Subscales: Symbolic; Economic; Historical; Aesthetic; Spiritual; Social."
## [6425] "Factors: Digital literacy; Security and risk; Mediation."
## [6426] "Subscales: Neighborhood subscale; Caregiver capacity subscale; Caregiver functioning subscale; Caregiver commitment subscale; Child maltreatment subscale."
## [6427] "Subscales: Sensitivity; Endurance; Willingness. Factors: Participants' sensitivity and willingness to report pain; Participants' and woman's pain endurance; Men's pain endurance and woman's sensitivity and willingness to report pain; Men's sensitivity and willingness to report pain."
## [6428] "Factors: Young Adult Sensitivity and Willingness to Report Pain; Older Adult Sensitivity and Willingness to Report Pain."
## [6429] "Subscales: School Problems (Attitude to School; Attitude to Teacher; Sensation-Seeking); Internalizing Problems (Atypicality; Locus of Control; Social Stress; Anxiety; Depression; Sense of Inadequacy; Somatization); Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD: Inattention; Hyperactivity); Personal Adjustment (Relations With Parents; Interpersonal Relations; Self-Esteem; Self-Reliance)."
## [6430] "Subscales: Self-interest; Other-interest."
## [6431] "Subscales: Cheerfulness; Seriousness; Bad mood."
## [6432] "Second-order Factors: Appearance; Moral Virtue; Cognitive Experience; Conscious Emotionality."
## [6433] "Factors: Family interaction; Interaction with others; Individual skills."
## [6434] "Factors: Model Adherence Component; Model Adherence Strategy; Collaboration Indicator; Judicial Decision Making; Lack of Treatment; Lack of Information Sharing and Evaluation; Lack of Operational Support; Lack of Community and Political Support."
## [6435] "Factors: Healthcare provider relationship/communication (F1); Knowledge and information about multiple sclerosis (F2); Treatment adherence/barriers (F3); Maintaining health behavior (F4); Social/family support (F5)."
## [6436] "Factors: Information and medical care; Life perspective; Relationship; Comprehensive support; Quality of life."
## [6437] "Factors: Situation modification; Attentional deployment; Cognitive reappraisal; Suppression."
## [6438] "Subscales: Knowledge (K); Attitude (A); Practice (P)."
## [6439] "Subscales: Train the subordinate; Punish the subordinate; Monitor the subordinate; Counsel the subordinate about work standards; Provide support and sympathy to the subordinate."
## [6440] "Factors: Cognitive fatigue; Physical fatigue; Emotional fatigue."
## [6441] "Factors: Physical fatigue; Emotional fatigue; Cognitive fatigue."
## [6442] "Scales: Antisocial Behavior (AA); Prosocial Behavior (PB)."
## [6443] "Subscales: Distractors (D); Social Desirability (S); Moral-Sharing (M-S); Moral-Consoling (M-C); Moral-Helping (M-H)."
## [6444] "Subscales: General Verbal Learning; Intrusions; Interference."
## [6445] "Subscales: Common Experience; Effortful Construction; Mysterious."
## [6446] "Factors: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Stability; Intellect."
## [6447] "Factors: Peer reviewers fake identity; Expert reviewers fake identity; Attribution of service failure; Consumer deception; Consumer dissatisfaction."
## [6448] "Subscales: Faith Community & Reference Group Approval of Family Planning (FP) Use; Perceptions of Prevalence of FP Use in Congregation; Role in Chores; Role in Child Care."
## [6449] "Subscales: Perceived Authority; Perceived Closeness; Peer Referent; Moral Obligation; Like Intention."
## [6450] "Subscales: Family and children; Work and education; General future optimism."
## [6451] "Subscales: Role Conflict; Role Overload; Social Interaction Anxiety; Disappointment; Lurking Intention; Privacy Concern; SNS Self-efficacy; Social Interaction Need; Self-expression Need; Fantasizing."
## [6452] "Subscales: Dog–Owner Interaction (DOI); Perceived Emotional Closeness (EC); Perceived Costs (PC)."
## [6453] "Subscales: IT integration capability; Knowledge absorptive capacity (Knowledge acquisition; Knowledge assimilation; Knowledge transformation; Knowledge exploitation); Knowledge desorptive capacity (Knowledge identification; Knowledge transfer); Firm performance."
## [6454] "Factors: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Stability; Intellect."
## [6455] "Factors: Discomfort in Social Interaction; Vulnerability; Coping; [Admiration and Rewarding Interaction]."
## [6456] "Factors: Helplessness; Self-efficacy."
## [6457] "Subscales: Faith Community & Reference Group Approval of Family Planning (FP) Use; Perceptions of Prevalence of FP Use in Congregation; Role in Chores; Role in Child Care."
## [6458] "Factors: Focus on opportunities (FTO); Focus on limitations (FTL)"
## [6459] "Constructs: Interactional justice; Distributive justice; Likability; Satisfaction with service recovery; Desire to reconcile; Repurchase intention; Positive word of mouth."
## [6460] "Subscales: Social relationships; Employment conditions; Working conditions; Work content."
## [6461] "Factors: Valuation of peer-feedback as instructional method (VIM); Confidence in quality of received peer-feedback (CR); Confidence in own peer-feedback quality (CO); Valuation of peer-feedback as an important skill (VPS)."
## [6462] "First Order Factors: Intimacy; Passion; Commitment. General Factor: Love."
## [6463] "Subscales: Social Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectation; Reading Emotional Expression; Social Affiliation; Arousal; Power/Leadership."
## [6464] "Subscales: Resourceful; Ungrateful. Factors: Coddled; Disrespectful; Rookie; Radically progressive; Ambitious; Smart; Hip; Techie."
## [6465] "Subscales: Showing Interpersonal Sensitivity (SIS); Providing General Information (PGI); Communicating Specific Information (CSI); Treating People Respectfully (TPR)."
## [6466] "Factors: Cognitive Empathy: Affective Empathy; Compassionate Empathy."
## [6467] "Subscales: Speech function; Psychosocial function."
## [6468] "Factors: Cognitive empathy (CE); Emotional reactivity (ER); Social skills (SS)."
## [6469] "Factors: Representing reasons for not attending systemic sclerosis support groups personal reasons; Practical reasons; Beliefs about support groups."
## [6470] "Factors: Mental Anxiety; Somatic Anxiety."
## [6471] "Subscales: Attitude; Intention; Perceived behavior control; Subjective norm future; Subjective norm present."
## [6472] "Factors: Pedagogical affordance; Social affordance; Technical affordance; Extrinsic motivation; Intrinsic motivation; Shallow cognitive enhancement; Deep cognitive engagement."
## [6473] "Subscales: Technology Readiness (TR); Learner Control (LC); Online Communication Self-efficacy (OCS); Self-directed Learning (SDL); Motivation for Learning (MFL)."
## [6474] "Subscales: Motivation for change; Understanding of change models; Acting radically; Building support for change; Maintaining relationships."
## [6475] "Factors: Intrinsic value; Utility value; Attainment value; Perceived relative cost; Autonomous motivation to transfer; Controlled motivation to transfer."
## [6476] "Factors: Internalizing (IF); Externalizing (EF)."
## [6477] "Subscales: Belongingness motives; Political participation motives; Instrumental motives; Host culture adoption orientations; Heritage culture maintenance orientations; Immigration policy attitudes."
## [6478] "Factors: Enacted stigma (Interpersonal interactions; Major life areas; Community, social and civic life)."
## [6479] "Factors: Factor 1 = Cultural Openness and Desire to Learn; Factor 2 =Awareness of Contemporary Racism; Factor 3 = Empathy; Factor 4 = Resentment and Cultural Dominance; Factor 5 = Anxiety and Lack of Multicultural Self-Efficacy."
## [6480] "Subscales: Alphabet knowledge; Phonological awareness; Vocabulary and oral language; Listening comprehension."
## [6481] "Factors: Behavioral Support; Differentiation; Classroom Management; Instructional Practices."
## [6482] "Subscales: Disgust; Fear; Embarrassment."
## [6483] "Factors: Meaning in caregiving; Caregiving mastery; Positive emotion on caregiving; Support from others."
## [6484] "Factors: Gustatory and olfactory imagery; Kinaesthetics; Organic modality; Visual imagery; Auditory imagery; Cutaneous imagery; Unnamed, heterogeneous; Unnamed, visual image distinguished from others."
## [6485] "Factors: Imagery; Somatic perception."
## [6486] "Factors: Cognitive impulsivity; Behavioral impulsivity; Impatience/restlessness."
## [6487] "Factors: Primary sexual dysfunction; Secondary sexual dysfunction; Tertiary sexual dysfunction."
## [6488] "Subscales: Anglo-centric/Assimilationist attitudes; Inclusive/Pluralistic attitudes."
## [6489] "Factors: techEnthusiasm; techAnxiety."
## [6490] "Factors: Technical quality; Information quality; Feedback; Ease of use; Benefits; Cross-organizational collaboration; Internal collaboration."
## [6491] "Subscales: Agency; Self-expression; Realism; Social learning; Social comparison; Filter."
## [6492] "Factors: Control; Salience; Relapse; Dissatisfaction; Negative consequences."
## [6493] "Factors: Burden and Loss; Quality of Life; Perceived Social and Cognitive Loss."
## [6494] "Factors: Readiness to exchange views on religious topics; Readiness to seek mutual understanding; Internal barriers for the symmetry of a dialogue; Readiness to communicate with representatives of other religions."
## [6495] "Subscales: Responsibility; Purpose; Flexibility; Perspective; Reasoning; Sustainability."
## [6496] "Scales: Inconsistency; Atypicality; Structure."
## [6497] "Subscales: Caregiver Life Interference (CLI); Injection signs reported by caregiver (CS); Ease of Injection Schedule (EoIS); Family Life Interference (FLI); Life Interference (LI); Pen Ease of Use (PEoU); Injection Signs and Symptoms (SS); Satisfaction and Willingness to Continue (WtC)."
## [6498] "Subscales: Communication climate (Openness; Participation); Organizational identification; Affective commitment to change; Behavioral support for change (Cooperation; Championing)."
## [6499] "Subscales: Exploration; Collaboration."
## [6500] "Subscales: Security; Trust; Privacy concerns; E-satisfaction; Ease of use; Repurchase intentions."
## [6501] "Coding Categories: Rectifying access inequality; Addressing economic inequality; Ensuring equal representation; Avoiding biased decisions; Ensuring access to learning; Avoiding conflict"
## [6502] "Factors: Ethics of anaesthesia care; Patient's risk care; Patient engagement with technology; Collaboration within patient care (items 16‐20), anaesthesia patient care with medication; Peri‐anaesthesia nursing intervention; Knowledge of anaesthesia patient care."
## [6503] "Subscales: Euro-MCD I (before the first MCD); Euro-MCD II (after multiple MCDs)."
## [6504] "Subscales: Supervision-Related Disclosure; Counseling-Related Disclosure."
## [6505] "Constructs: Resilience to digital distractions; ICT self-efficacy; Motivation; Systematic work approach; Time spent on individual studies."
## [6506] "Subscales: Career aspirations; Escaping routines; Social contribution; Coincidence."
## [6507] "Factors: Consummatory pleasure without motivation driving; Consummatory pleasure with motivation driving; Anticipatory pleasure without motivation driving; anticipatory pleasure with motivation driving."
## [6508] "Factors: Recycling and use of environmentally friendly products; Environmentally friendly purchases and energy saving; Educating oneself and voluntarism."
## [6509] "Subscales: Interest/hobby; Food and drink; Social activities; Sensory experience."
## [6510] "Subscales: Defusion; Common Humanity; Acceptance."
## [6511] "Factors: Prosocial Behavior; Honesty; Self-Development; Self-Control; Respect at School; Respect at Home."
## [6512] "Factors: Site attachment (Social bond; Dependence; Identity); Perceived service quality; Perceived website security and privacy issues; Perceived entertainment; Intentions to repeat the purchase."
## [6513] "Subscales: Educating oneself; Recycling; Purchasing environmentally-friendly products."
## [6514] "Subscales: Reliving; Vividness; Visual imagery; Scene; Narrative coherence; Life-story relevance; Rehearsal."
## [6515] "Subscales: FOI Communication; FOI Interaction; FOI Knowledge; FOI Caregiving."
## [6516] "Factors: Integrity; Compliance. Subscales: Controlling; Sanctioning; Rule clarity; Rule defectiveness; Rule viability; Accountability; Leader's role modeling; Pressure to compromise; Obedience; Ill-conceived goals."
## [6517] "Subscales: Quiet; Noise."
## [6518] "Subscales: Personal-level risk perceptions; Societal-level risk perceptions; Self-efficacy for MERS; MERS-related stress; Trust in government; Trust in news media."
## [6519] "Factors: Debt for material aspects (F1); Self-sufficiency and discomfort in receiving help (F2); Moral self-demand in the reception of help (F3); Debt in the receipt of gifts (F4)."
## [6520] "Subscales: Comprehension; Mental State Reasoning; Spontaneous Mental State Inference."
## [6521] "Domains (Sub-scales): Social-emotional development (Building trust; Confidence, and independence; Social and emotional wellbeing); Cognitive development (Supporting and extending language and communication; Supporting learning and critical thinking; Assessing learning and language)."
## [6522] "Subscales: Perceived usefulness (PU); Perceived ease-of-use (PEU); Perceived enjoyment (PEJ); Perceived convenience (PCO); Attitude (ATT); Behavioral Intention (INT); Actual usage (ACU)."
## [6523] "First-Order Factors: Cultural Knowledge; Cultural Skills; Cultural Metacognition. Second-Order Factors: Cultural Intelligence"
## [6524] "Subscales: Connectedness; Expansion of self; Adult status and social identity; Family heritage; Development of self; Family maintenance."
## [6525] "Domains: Global cognitive function; Memory; Language; Executive functions; Visuospatial functions."
## [6526] "Subscales: Communication; Satisfaction; Involvement; Limit Setting; Autonomy."
## [6527] "Subscales: Visual recognition; Auditory recognition; Finger tapping; Speed accuracy right; Speed accuracy left; 1 choice visual processing; 4 choice visual processing; Visuospatial memory; Shape memory; Numerical memory; Base stealing; Baseball catch; Spaceship race; Meteor dodge; Sit stand tap."
## [6528] "Factors: Developmental Strain; Subjective Invulnerability; Normative Expectancy."
## [6529] "Subscales: Muscular Fitness (MF); Cardiorespiratory Fitness (CRF); Flexibility (FL); Body Composition (BC)."
## [6530] "Factors: Satisfaction with Parenting; Involvement with Parenting; Communication; Limit Setting; Autonomy."
## [6531] "Subscales: Sensitivity; Susceptibility; Response efficacy; Self-efficacy. Factors: Endocrine disruptor; Goods; Cosmetics; Dust; Fat; Prevention efficacy; Protection efficacy."
## [6532] "Subscales: Individual protective; Social protective."
## [6533] "Subscales: Site improvement; Agency; Resilience; Selection; Planning; Leading; External; Commitment; Involvement; Capabilities; Teams; Funding; Staffing; Time; Implementation data; Outcomes data; Adaptability; Processes; Relationships; Site renewal."
## [6534] "Subscales [Factors]: Personal EHB-FA [Chemical reduction; Electromagnetic reduction; Food selection; Cosmetic selection; Dust and gas reduction]; Community EHB-FA [Reduction; Reuse; Recycle; Response]."
## [6535] "Domains: Knowledge; Confidence; Use of Solution-Focused Coaching Techniques; Client Orientation; Process Orientation; Goal Orientation; Ecological Orientation."
## [6536] "Subscales: Direct attitude; Indirect attitude; Direct subjective norm; Indirect subjective norm; Direct perceived behavioral control; Indirect perceived behavioral control; Intention."
## [6537] "Subscales (Factors): Self-Knowledge (Appearance self; Social self; Morality appraisement); Self-Experience (Learning self; Sense of satisfaction; Sense of anxiety); Self-Control (Initiative-taking; Self-restraint; Self-monitoring)."
## [6538] "Factors: Concerns about occasional encounters; Avoidance of personal contact; Responsibility and blame; Liberalism; Non-discrimination; Confidentiality of seropositive status; Criminalization of HIV transmission."
## [6539] "Subscales: Situational success expectancies; Situational task values-Values; Situational task values-Costs."
## [6540] "Constructs: Use habit; Use intensity; Psychological enhancement; Playfulness; Social enhancement; Social influence; Social support; Social identity; Perceived control; Mobile SNS addiction."
## [6541] "Factors: Fear/concerns about being infected (F1); Fear personal contact (F2); Prejudicial views toward groups at high risk (F3); Liberalism (F4); Social support (F5)."
## [6542] "Hypothesized Factors: Psychological flexibility (PF); Teaching resiliency (tRES); Sense of purpose (SOP)."
## [6543] "Subscales: Standing Posture; Sitting Posture; Using backpacks; Mobilizing heavy weights; Lying Posture."
## [6544] "Subscales: Perception; Access; Differentiation; Correction; Arrangement."
## [6545] "Subscales: Attitudes toward clouded leopards index scores (AIS); Attitudes toward clouded leopard competitors and prey index scores (AISCP); Knowledge index scores (KIS)."
## [6546] "Subscales: Ability; Opinion."
## [6547] "Subtypes [Subscales]: Frenetic [Ambition; Overload; Involvement]; Underchallenged [Indifference; Lack of Development; Boredom]; Worn-out [Lack of Acknowledgement; Neglect; Lack of Control]."
## [6548] "Subscales: Minor; Moderate."
## [6549] "Subscales: Marketing exploitation; Marketing exploration; Marketing metrics use; Financial metrics use; Metric-based training orientation; Metric-based compensation orientation; Market orientation; Long-term orientation; Firm size; Defender strategic orientation; Market turbulence."
## [6550] "Factors: Receiving instrumental support (RIS); Receiving emotional support (RES); Giving instrumental support (GIS); Giving emotional support (GES)."
## [6551] "Factors: Perceptions of Team-based learning (TBL); Perceptions of teamwork."
## [6552] "Subscales: Supply Chain Network Risk Drivers; Supply Chain Exploration Practices; Supply Chain Exploitation Practices; Supply Chain Risk Management Practices; Firm Financial Performance."
## [6553] "Constructs: Entrepreneurial creativity; Opportunity recognition; Resource availability; Career achievement; Social reputation; Entrepreneurial happiness; Capability enhancement; Financial satisfaction."
## [6554] "Constructs: Human Resource Management System (Empowerment; Selection; Training; Performance appraisals; Compensation); Strategic Human Resource Management; Competence exploration; Radical innovation."
## [6555] "Factors: Business ties; Political ties; Exploratory innovation; Exploitative innovation; Competitive intensity; Firm performance."
## [6556] "Subscales: Organizational commitment (OC); Procedural memory (PM); Peripheral vision (PV); Continuous Learning (CL); Organizational Performance (OP)."
## [6557] "Factors: Calculative commitment; Sustainable competitive advantage; Long-term orientation; Technological turbulence; Affective commitment; Service innovation; Adoption intention; Actual adoption."
## [6558] "Subscales: Identity diffusion; Reality testing; Use of primitive defenses."
## [6559] "Factors: Generic; Shift-Persist."
## [6560] "Subscales: Effects on daily living activities and psychology; Effects on social activities."
## [6561] "Factors: Physical well-being; Social/family well-being; Emotional well-being; Functional well-being; Additional concerns/palliative care."
## [6562] "Factors: Material self-projection; Materialistic evaluation of others; Emotional self-assurance; Self-deservingness."
## [6563] "Factors: Negative Actions; Positive Actions."
## [6564] "Subscales: Life changes; Concerns about infection; Concerns about school; Concerns about home confinement; Concerns about basic needs."
## [6565] "Factors: Social Isolation; Anxiety."
## [6566] "Factors: Familiarity (FAM); Trust (TR); Attitude (ATT)."
## [6567] "Factors: Socially Rewarding Self-Presentation; Trendiness; Escapist Addiction; Novelty."
## [6568] "Constructs: Purchase intention; Attitude toward the reviewed product; Attitude toward the reviewed seller; Review impression; Perceived diagnosticity of negative reviews; Response relevance; Response rate."
## [6569] "Subscales: Understanding in programming (UP); Support for programming (SP); Expectation of programming (EP)."
## [6570] "Subscales: Breast Cancer Known risk factors; Breast Cancer Risk lay beliefs; Breast Cancer Symptoms; Cervical Cancer Known risk factors; Cervical Cancer Risk lay beliefs; Cervical Cancer Symptoms."
## [6571] "Subscales: Informational support (IS); Emotional support (ES); Trust in peers (TR); Norm of reciprocity (NR); Intention to offer support (INT)."
## [6572] "Factors: Information sharing; Cool and new trend; Relaxing entertainment; Companionship; Boredom/habitual pass time; Information seeking."
## [6573] "Factors: In-person rejection from White men; White supremacy in intimate contexts; Online rejection from White men; Stress from race/ethnicity-based rejection; Abuse and denigration based on race/ethnicity; Intimacy-related hopelessness; Rejection from Men of Color; Race/ethnicity-based fetishization."
## [6574] "Factors: Perceived Ephemerality; Perceived Usefulness; Perceived Intrusion; Perceived Controllability; Perceived Severity; Self-Disclosure Intention."
## [6575] "Factors: Peer situations; Physical challenge; Separation/preschool; Performance situations; Unfamiliar adults; General novel situations."
## [6576] "Subscales: Sociolinguistic markers; Ethnic markers; Socioeconomic markers."
## [6577] "Factors: Emotional stability; Extraversion; Openness to experience; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness."
## [6578] "Hypothesized Subscales: Skills; Knowledge; Attitude. Shared Skills and Knowledge Factors: Typical Clients; Special Clients; Conservative Clients; Ethically Complicated Clients. Attitude Factors: General Sexual Attitudes; Valuing Sexual Health Training; Open to Providing Sexual Help; Conservatism."
## [6579] "Factors: Perceived agency; Perceived experience; Customer satisfaction; Robot service failure."
## [6580] "Subscales: Mania; Envy; Manic reparation; True reparation."
## [6581] "Subscales: Expectation Beliefs (EB); Attainment value (AV); Intrinsic value (IV); Utility value (UV)."
## [6582] "Subscales: Co-brooding; Co-reflection. Factors: Consequences of the problem; Negative feelings; Causes of the problem; Non-understood parts of the problem."
## [6583] "Dimensions: Compliance (General; Sanitation); Helping; Safety; Voice; Initiative."
## [6584] "Model Factors: Occupational Calling; Prosocial Motivation; Daily Depletion"
## [6585] "Subscales: Transformational; Transactional; Neutral; Laissez-faire; Toxic."
## [6586] "Factors: Consuming outside school (CON); Communicating outside school (COM); Creating outside school (CRE); Sharing (SHA)."
## [6587] "Factors: Exposure to Severe Medical Trauma; Unusual Operations; Exposure to Self; Victims Known; Cases Involving Children; Trauma to Self; Known Suicide."
## [6588] "Subscales: Perceived wait time; Reappraisal; Suppression; Anger; Worry; Future loyalty."
## [6589] "Subscales: Teaching Styles (ST); Innovative Teaching Practices (IN); Classroom Climate (CL); Asking Questions (QU); Overcoming Barriers (BR); Confidence (CO)."
## [6590] "Subscales: Compassion for others; Compassion from others; Compassion for self."
## [6591] "Factors: Anxiety about the Self-concept; Reflections on the Self-concept."
## [6592] "Subscales: Perceived behavioral control; Optimism; Attitude; Outcome expectancy; Reinforcement; Intentions; Goals/priority; Innovation characteristics; Innovation strategies; Organization."
## [6593] "Factors: Trauma to Self; Victims Known to Fire-Emergency Worker; Multiple Casualties; Incidents Involving Children; Unusual or Problematic Tactical Operations; Exposure to Severe Medical Trauma."
## [6594] "Scales: Climate behaviors; Climate concerns."
## [6595] "Scales: Climate behaviors; Climate concerns."
## [6596] "Subscales: Technique-Specific Shared Trauma; Personal Trauma; Professional Posttraumatic Growth."
## [6597] "Subscales: Task-Technology Fit (TTF); Too Little; Too Much."
## [6598] "Subscales: Autonomy; Variety; Significance; Identity; Feedback."
## [6599] "Subscales: Institutional support; Technology self-efficacy (TSE); Teacher beliefs (TBFC); Teaching strategies (TS)."
## [6600] "Factors: Consuming inside school (InCON); Creating inside school (inCRE); Sharing inside school (InSHA)."
## [6601] "Subscales: Physical activity; Predisposing (Am I able; Is it worth it); Enabling (Access to infrastructure; Opportunity to take part in PA); Reinforcing (Parents; Coaches); Physical self-concept (Perceived sport competence; Perceived cardiovascular endurance; perceived Strength)."
## [6602] "Factors: Customer centricity; Marketing innovativeness; Demand uncertainty; Industry competition; Technological turbulence; Financial performance; Access to affordable financial resources via formal financial intermediaries; Growth mindset."
## [6603] "Factors: Social media marketing activities; Self-brand connections; Brand engagement in self-concept; Brand attachment."
## [6604] "Factors: Regulatory oversight (RO); Fulfilling tourism contracts (FTC); Travel feedback processing (TFP); Tourism contract compliance (TCC); Truth in advertising (TIA)."
## [6605] "Subscales: Mission Analysis; Goal Specification; Strategy Formulation and Planning; Monitoring Progress toward Goals; Systems Monitoring; Team Monitoring and Backup; Coordination; Conflict Management; Motivating and Confidence Building; Affect Management. Factors: Transition Processes; Action Processes; Interpersonal Processes."
## [6606] "Factors: Self-improvement and Self-Reflections; People and Principles Orientation; Resilience; Social Competence; Problem-Solving; Mentorship."
## [6607] "Factors: Intent to hire; Attitudes-productivity; Attitudes-challenges; Subjective norms; Behavioral control"
## [6608] "Domains: Social; Fine motor; Language; Gross motor."
## [6609] "Subscales: Social relationships; Leisure habits; Risk-taking behaviors; Eating habits; Search for clean air; Sun protection; Physical activity; Water drinking."
## [6610] "Subscales: Reporting diagnoses; Recruiting and examination services; Individualized support plans; Barrier-free services; Assistance with activities."
## [6611] "Factors: Low-Risk; High-Risk; Formal Political."
## [6612] "Factors: Being in the Moment; Mindful discipline."
## [6613] "Subscales: School performance; Peer relationships; Family relationships; Home duties/self-care."
## [6614] "Factors: Choice within certain limits; Rationale for demands and limits; Acknowledgement of feelings; Threats to punish; Performance pressures; Guilt inducing criticisms; Autonomy supportive parenting; Controlling parenting."
## [6615] "Factors: Negative cyberbullying attitudes (NCA); General cyberbullying characteristics (GCC)."
## [6616] "Subscales: Rivalry; Suppliers; Entry; Substitutes; Buyers."
## [6617] "Factors: Perceived Competitive Threat; Fear of Failure (Fear of Shame & Embarrassment; Fear of Upsetting Important Others; Fear of Losing Social Influence); Moral Relativism; Moral Disengagement (Diffusion of responsibility; Displacement of responsibility)."
## [6618] "Subscales: Readiness to talk with your doctor; Readiness to talk with your family."
## [6619] "Factors: Promoting patient participation; Maintaining dignity; Preparedness; Empathic understanding; Responsiveness."
## [6620] "Factors: Activities performed after a fall episode; Communication to health technicians of the institution."
## [6621] "Factors: Hedonic motives; Eudaimonic motives."
## [6622] "Domains: Physical; Psychological; Social."
## [6623] "Subscales: Science continuing motivation (Science CM); Technology continuing motivation (Technology CM); Engineering continuing motivation (Engineering CM); Mathematics continuing motivation (Mathematics CM)."
## [6624] "Factors: In-session activity; Therapy-related processing; Therapist-oriented passivity."
## [6625] "Factors: Pre-perceived benefit; Initial perceived benefit; Initial self-disclosure; Continued self-disclosure; Initial use; Pre-privacy concern; Initial privacy concern; Continued use."
## [6626] "Scales: Psychological Wellbeing; Psychological Distress."
## [6627] "Subscales: Understanding Trauma; Safety; Trust; Peer Support; Collaboration; Empowerment; Cultural Sensitivity."
## [6628] "Subscales: Understanding Trauma; Safety; Trust; Peer Support; Collaboration; Empowerment; Cultural Sensitivity."
## [6629] "Factors: General factor; Physical environment; Learning materials/enriched surroundings; Variety of experiences and family social engagement; Acceptance and responsivity; Regulatory activities: Risk taking; Regulatory activities: Rules and routines."
## [6630] "Scales: Psychological Wellbeing (PWS); Psychological Distress (PDS)."
## [6631] "Subscales: Autonomy Support (AS); Competence Support (CT); Relatedness Support (RS); Autonomy Thwarting (AT); Competence Thwarting (CT); Relatedness Thwarting (RT)."
## [6632] "Subscales: Autonomy Support (AS); Competence Support (CT); Relatedness Support (RS); Autonomy Thwarting (AT); Competence Thwarting (CT); Relatedness Thwarting (RT)."
## [6633] "Factors: Inability to Inhibit; Oversharing; Inappropriate Comments; Inappropriate Exposure; Overly Flirtatious."
## [6634] "Subscales: Conventional Activism; High-Risk Activism."
## [6635] "Factors: Coping skills; Depression; Suicidal ideation; Narcissism."
## [6636] "Factors: Manage; Pull; Lenient; Effort."
## [6637] "Subscales: Learned helplessness (LH); Mastery Orientation (MO)."
## [6638] "Subscales: Reality; Causes; Consequences."
## [6639] "Subscales: Sociopolitical; Personal Well-Being; Ease With Diversity; Environmental Attitude; Caring."
## [6640] "Subscales: Motor tic severity; Vocal tic severity."
## [6641] "Factors: Technology Acceptance Model (Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Intention to use); User Experience (Pragmatic quality; Hedonic Quality – Stimulation); Cybersickness (Nausea; Oculomotor); Presence (Ability to act; Ability to examine; Interface quality; Self-assessment of performance; Realism); Personal innovativeness."
## [6642] "Subscales: Positive; Negative."
## [6643] "Factors: Rehearsal (RE); Elaboration and organization (EO); Critical thinking (CT); Metacognitive self-regulation (ME); General strategy use (GS)."
## [6644] "Constructs: Gamification; Social interaction; Perceived usefulness; Perceived ease of use; Behavioral intention; Perceived enjoyment."
## [6645] "Subscales: Targeted threat risk indicators; Weapons; Environmental risk factors; Mental health risk factors; Behavioral risk factors."
## [6646] "Subscales: App loyalty; External motivation to use health app; Engagement; Intrinsic motivation; Level of challenge; Need for autonomy; Need for competence; Need for social interaction; Need for relatedness; Perceived playfulness."
## [6647] "Constructs: Pehchaan (Friendship component); Len-den (Reciprocity component); Bharosa (Trust component); Long-term orientation; Satisfaction; Performance."
## [6648] "Factors: Networking orientation; Relational learning; Social network relationships; Business relationships; Relational rents; Institutional support; Dysfunctional competition."
## [6649] "Factors: Hopelessness; Hopefulness; Stress; Anger; Status quo acceptance; Upward adaptation; Opportunism; Relationalism; Commitment to mainstream supplier; Ethnic partner preference; Ethnic identification; Assimilation proneness."
## [6650] "Subscales: Financial Attitude; Financial Self Efficacy (FSE); Financial Planning Activity; Financial Management Behavior (FMB); Gamifying Features (GF)."
## [6651] "Constructs: Sustainability-oriented innovation outcomes (Processes; Organizational; Products; Services; Marketing); Alliance proactiveness; Alliance portfolio coordination; Customer turbulence; Competitor turbulence; Tech turbulence"
## [6652] "Factors: Control of Symptoms; Maintaining Functioning; Behaviour Change."
## [6653] "Factors: Controlling Symptoms (SE-SC); Maintain Functioning (SE-MF)."
## [6654] "Factors: Community attractiveness; Community receptiveness; Community cognition."
## [6655] "Factors: Teaching Presence; Social Presence; Cognitive Presence."
## [6656] "Scales (Subscales): Motivation (Self-Efficacy for Learning & Performance; Test Anxiety: Task Value; Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Negative Control of Learning Beliefs): Learning Strategies (Meta-cognitive Self-regulation; Effort Regulation; Time Management; Organization; Peer Learning; Elaboration; Rehearsal; Critical Thinking; Study Environment Management)."
## [6657] "Factors: Cognitive impulsiveness; Planning impulsiveness; Motor impulsiveness."
## [6658] "Subscales: Public-life restrictions; Restricted social contacts; Staying at home."
## [6659] "Subscales: Perseverative thinking; Emotional reactivity; Perseverative behavior."
## [6660] "Subscales: Time Perspective (TP); Agency Beliefs (AB); Openness to Alternatives (OA); Systems Perception (SP); Concern for Others (CO)."
## [6661] "Factors: Trust in the scientific method; Science as a source of hope; Scientists as the only experts; Science as a tool of practical influence."
## [6662] "Subscales: Defiance of CDC guidelines; Fear of the COVID-19 virus; Certainty; Severity; Control."
## [6663] "Subscales: Burden by COVID-19 restrictions; Burden due to worries; Changes in psychopathology; Helpfulness of coping strategies."
## [6664] "Factors: Physical and Emotional; Cognitive; Vestibular-ocular."
## [6665] "Subscales: Privacy concern (PCO); Social value (SOV); Hedonic value (HEV); Self-censorship (SCE); Continuance Intention (CON)."
## [6666] "Factors: Transportation into stories; Trust; Personal connection; Advocacy tendency."
## [6667] "Factors: Leisure literacy; Recreationist-environment fit; Cohesion; Self-image congruity."
## [6668] "Factors: Salience; Neglect of duty; Loss of control."
## [6669] "Constructs: Trust (TR); Crisis management (CM); Healthcare system (HCS); Solidarity (SOL); Willingness to support a destination (WSD); Travel intention (TI)."
## [6670] "Factors: Pro-environmental behaviour; Sustainable intelligence; Biospheric value; Economic responsibility; Socio-cultural responsibility; Environmental responsibility."
## [6671] "Factors: Entertainment motive; Pass time motive; Information motive; Relaxation motive; Parasocial interaction; Perceived well-being; Travel intentions."
## [6672] "Factors: Exhaustion in one’s parental role; Feelings of being fed up with parenting; Emotional distancing from one’s child(ren)."
## [6673] "Subscales: Emotional exhaustion in one’s parental role; Contrast with previous parental self; Feelings of being fed up with one’s parental role; Emotional distancing from one’s children."
## [6674] "Factors: Role Conflict (RC); Role Ambiguity (RA); Proactive Personality(PP); Employee Creativity (EC); External Representation (ER); Internal Influence (II); Service Delivery (SD)."
## [6675] "Factors: COVID-19 Event Strength (CES); Psychological Safety (PS); Supervisor support safety (SSS); Fear of External Threat (FET); Avoidance coping behaviors (ACB)."
## [6676] "Factors: Society awareness and media impacts; Interpersonal characteristics and exposure to sexual harassment; Personal activities and religiosity; Sense of self and reality."
## [6677] "Subscales: Satisfaction; Cognitive validity; Cognitive accessibility."
## [6678] "Factors: Environmental risk perception; National park goal identification; Environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception; Attitude toward environmental CSR; Public employee pro-environmental behavior; Private employee pro-environmental behavior (Energy saving)."
## [6679] "Factors: National characteristics; National capacity; Environmental conditions; National relationships; National identity; Symbolic patriotism; Constructive patriotism; Uncritical patriotism; Psychological ownership; Civilized tourism behavioral intention."
## [6680] "Subscales: Internalization: Muscular; Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat; Internalization: Ideal Appearance; Pressures: Family/Peers/Significant Others; Pressures: Media."
## [6681] "Subscales: Internalization: Muscular; Internalization: Thin/Low Body Fat; Internalization: Ideal Appearance; Pressures: Peers/Significant Others; Pressures: Media."
## [6682] "Factors: Negative items; Risk factor; Positive items; General factor."
## [6683] "Subscales: Bullying; Mental disorder; Prejudice; Trauma."
## [6684] "Subscales: Challenges associated with caregiving; Support service preferences for caregivers."
## [6685] "Factors: Incidental Involvements; Social/Financial Involvements; Dual Professional Roles."
## [6686] "Factors: Physical and Sexual Development; Emotional Responsivity and Communication; Academic and Life Skills; Discipline and Behavior Management."
## [6687] "Subscales: Agency; Social Support; Living in the Present; Helping Others; Integration; Outlook."
## [6688] "Knowledge Factors: Knowledge of efficacy; Knowledge of appropriate usage; Knowledge of resistance. Belief Factors: Summary attitudes towards taking antibiotics; Negative attitudes towards antibiotics; Positive attitudes towards taking antibiotics; Subjective social norm; Descriptive social norm; Self-efficacy to ask for antibiotics; Anticipated regret concerning not receiving antibiotics; Anticipated regret concerning receiving antibiotics."
## [6689] "Factors: Timeline chronic; Identity; Personal control; Illness coherence; Treatment control; Timeline cyclical; Emotional representation; Consequences."
## [6690] "Subscales: Internal trust (IT); Food legalizing (FL); Food enjoyment (FE); Sensitivity to physiological signals of hunger (SH); Sensitivity to physiological signals of satiation (SS); Self-efficacy in using physiological signals of hunger (SEH); Self-efficacy in using physiological signals of satiation (SES)."
## [6691] "Subscales: ICE-HCP-IBQ-Asthma; ICE-HCP-IBQ-ADHD."
## [6692] "Factors: Fertility potential; Children's health risk and future life; Partner disclosure; Barriers to getting pregnant/having children; Acceptance."
## [6693] "Dimensions: Sleeping/Resting; Eating; Going to the Toilet When Necessary; Adjusting One’s Activities when Ill."
## [6694] "Subscales: Compensation; Criticism; Change."
## [6695] "Factors: Postvention following a suicide; Nonjudgmental attitudes toward people affected by suicide; Talking with a suicidal person; Pastoral care with a suicidal person."
## [6696] "Factors: Ethical climate; Public service motivation; Psychological safety; Internal whistleblowing; External whistleblowing."
## [6697] "Factors: Sense of unity (IU); Identity flexibility (IF); Dialogue (ID)."
## [6698] "Factors: Personal Health Concerns; Privacy Concerns; Trust; Intention to share personal health data; Intention to create; Perceived benefits; Perceived risk."
## [6699] "Dimensions: Complementarity of Knowledge; Complementarity of Capabilities; Joint Innovative Capabilities; Service Innovation; Competitive Intensity; Demand Uncertainty."
## [6700] "Factors: Standardization of Process and Content Interfaces; Structured Data Connectivity; Modular Interconnected Processes; Fluid Partnering; Information quality; Innovation speed."
## [6701] "Domains: Affective; Cognitive; Behavioral; Functional-aesthetic body image."
## [6702] "Subscales: Motor; Verbal; Visual; Facial expression."
## [6703] "Factors: Psychological contract breaches; Trust; Commitment; Relational voice; Neglect; Relationship loyalty."
## [6704] "Factors: IT engagement (ITE); Strain (STR); IT-enabled productivity (PRO); Normative pressure on IT use (NOP); Information load (IL); Averting IT use dependence (AVD)."
## [6705] "Subscores: Motor; Verbal; Facial."
## [6706] "Factors: Threat Severity; Threat Susceptibility; Privacy Concern; Self-efficacy; Assurance Mechanism Effectiveness; Protection Motivation; Privacy Customization; Self-disclosure Behavior."
## [6707] "Subscales: Shortest path isolation contact (SPI-C); Shortest path isolation distance (SPI-D)."
## [6708] "Subscales: Trust in Institutions; Participation in Organizations; Collective Efficacy; Friendship Ties."
## [6709] "Factors: Ethical considerations; Treasuring life; Naturalistic belief; Practical considerations."
## [6710] "Factors: Awareness and Relational Resistance; Participation in Resistance Activities and Organizations; Interpersonal Confrontation; Leadership for Resistance."
## [6711] "Factors: Authenticity (AUT); Employee Helpfulness (EH) (Service employees at the destination . . .); Customer Delight (CD); Place Identity (PI)."
## [6712] "Domains: Nutrition; Exercise; Blood glucose monitoring; Oral medications; Insulin."
## [6713] "Subscales: Positive Affect (AFM-PA); Negative Affect (AFM-NA)."
## [6714] "Factors: ATQ-P-Model 9 [Individual’s daily functioning (ATQ-P-D); Self-evaluation (ATQ-P-S); Others’ evaluation of self (ATQ-P-O); Future expectations (ATQ-P-F).]; ATQ-P-Model 12 [Individual’s daily functioning (ATQ-P-D); Self-evaluation (ATQ-P-S); Others’ evaluation of self (ATQ-P-O); Future expectations (ATQ-P-F); Positive social functioning (ATQ-P-SF).]"
## [6715] "Factors: Somatic (PHQ-9-S); Nonsomatic/affective (PHQ-9-N)."
## [6716] "Subscales: Knowledge; Attitude toward normal delivery; Attitude toward caesarean section; Intention."
## [6717] "Factors: Increasing structural job resources; Increasing social job resources; Increasing challenging job demands; Decreasing hindering job demands."
## [6718] "Dimensions: Structural job resources; Social job resources; Challenging job demands."
## [6719] "Subscales: Parental beliefs; Child engagement with music; Parent initiation of singing; Parent initiation of music-making; Parent initiation of musical behavior; Breadth of musical exposure."
## [6720] "Factors: Perceived Ubiquity; Contextual Offering; Visual Attractiveness; App Incentives; Impulsiveness; Perceived Value; Repurchase Intention; Satisfying Experience."
## [6721] "Subscales: Fantasies-Any Target; Desires-Any Target; Activities-Any Target; Fantasies-Child; Desires-Child; Activities-Child."
## [6722] "Variables: Environmental Concern (EC); Environmental knowledge (EK); Emotional value (EV); Functional value (FV); Guest intention (GI); Social value (SV)."
## [6723] "Factors: Perceived structural stigma (PSS); Perceived other stigma (POS); Self stigma (SS); Personal stigma (PS)."
## [6724] "Subscales: Concrete thinking; Abstract thinking."
## [6725] "Dimensions: Positive Aspects; Negative Aspects."
## [6726] "Subscales: Service quality; Learning outcomes; Employability; Image; Value; Satisfaction; Loyalty."
## [6727] "Subscales: Contamination anxiety; Countermeasure compliance; Mental health impact; Specific stressor impact; Institutional & political trust; Conspiracy beliefs; Social cohesion."
## [6728] "Categories: Perceived relational and internal security; Positive and predictable quality of life; Interpersonal support."
## [6729] "Subscales: Goal of developing positive attitudes toward mathematics (Attitude Goal); Goal of developing efficiency in solving mathematical problems (Efficiency Goal); Goal of developing mathematical reasoning (Reasoning Goal)."
## [6730] "Subscales: Formal Instrumental support; Formal Informational support; Formal Psychological support; Informal Instrumental support; Informal Informational support; Informal Psychological support."
## [6731] "Subscales: Age at release; Persistence of sexual offending; Sexual deviance; Relationship to victims; General criminality."
## [6732] "Subscales: Fatigue-avoidance goal; Mood-management goal."
## [6733] "Domains: Insomnia; Delayed sleep phase; Insufficient sleep syndrome; Obstructive sleep apnea."
## [6734] "Subscales: Boldness; Meanness; Disinhibition."
## [6735] "Factors: Primitive Defenses/Identity Diffusion scale; Reality Testing scale."
## [6736] "Factors: Denial of Disability; Affirmation of Disability."
## [6737] "Factors: Diagnosis/symptoms (D/S); Etiology (ET); Treatment (TR); Endorsement of stigma (ST)."
## [6738] "Factors: Choosing the best; Alternative search."
## [6739] "Factors: Treatment quality; Diagnosis; Self management; Worries and concerns; Self efficacy; Decision to seek care; Psychosocial."
## [6740] "Factors: Surface acting; Deep acting; Expression of Naturally felt emotions; Emotion termination."
## [6741] "Factors: Brand appeal; Brand differentiation; Brand recognition."
## [6742] "Dimensions: Personal Spirituality; Communal Spirituality; Environmental Spirituality; Transcendental Spirituality. Sections: Ideals for Spiritual Health; Lived Experience of Spirituality."
## [6743] "Subscales: Positive; Negative; Neutral."
## [6744] "Factors: Impulse control; Self-discipline."
## [6745] "Subscales: Perceived susceptibility to health problems; Perceived consequences of health problems; Perceived benefits of participating in an online health program; Perceived barriers to participation in an online health program; Online health program self-efficacy; Social influence (online health program); Intention to participate in an online health program; Participation in an online health program; Organizational health behavior; Availability of task-related support from coworkers; Availability of family-related support from coworkers."
## [6746] "Subscales: Organizational trust; Job strain; Social support; Reward; Job satisfaction."
## [6747] "Factors: Innate predilection; Abstinence; Peer pressure; Fear of the relationship consequences: Family atmosphere; Risk taking."
## [6748] "Subscales: Self-Confidence; Self-Acceptance; Fulfilled Experience; Authenticity and Assertiveness."
## [6749] "Subscales: Critical clinical reasoning; Evidence-informed practice activities"
## [6750] "Subscales: Positive mood (CL-P); Negative mood (CL-N)."
## [6751] "Factors: Well-being; Voluntary activities; Basic needs; Intermediate needs; Higher needs."
## [6752] "Factors: Behavioral Inhibition System-Anxiety (BIS-A); Behavioral Activation System-Fear (BIS-F); Behavioral Activation System-Reward Responsiveness (BAS-RR); Behavioral Activation System-Drive (BAS-D); Behavioral Activation System-Fun seeking (BAS-FF)."
## [6753] "Subscales: External/appearance qualities of beauty (BCBS-E); Internal qualities of beauty (BCBS-I)."
## [6754] "Factors: Role definition; Work content; Personal relationships."
## [6755] "Factors: Self-Reflectivity (Self MON); Critical Distance (DIF / DEC); Understanding Others' Minds (UOM); Mastery (M). Subscales: Monitoring; Differentiation; Decentration; Integration; Mastery."
## [6756] "Subscales: Understanding one's own mind (self-self reflexivity); Decentering-differentiation (critical distance); Mastery (expertise in using mental contents); Understanding other's mind (self-other monitoring and understanding)."
## [6757] "Factors: Exploration; Strategic planning; Detailed planning; Prognosis."
## [6758] "Subscales: Respect; Material success and achievements; Religion; Individualism; Family support."
## [6759] "Factors: Threat; Challenge."
## [6760] "Subscales: Frequency; Relevance."
## [6761] "Factors: Positive Religious Attitudes (PRA); Negative Religious Attitudes (NRA)."
## [6762] "Factors: Psychosis; Eating, Sleep and Motor Activity; Mood; Disinhibition; Euphoria."
## [6763] "Factors: Lifestyle of Obese (LSO); Qualities and Characteristics of Obese (QCO)."
## [6764] "Factors: Weight Control Myths (WCM); Negative Characterization Myths (NCM)."
## [6765] "Subscales: Sensory; Motor; Autonomic."
## [6766] "Subscales: Sensory; Motor; Autonomic symptoms and functioning."
## [6767] "Factors: Flexibility/rigidity (FR); Languid/vigorous (LV)."
## [6768] "Subscales: Insomnia Catastrophizing Scale–Nighttime(ICS-N); Insomnia Catastrophizing Scale–Daytime (ICS–D)."
## [6769] "Factors: Successful adjustment to living with HIV and taking medications; Positive adjustment to living with HIV."
## [6770] "Subscales: Obligation to Present an Image of Strength; Obligation to Suppress Emotions; Resistance to Being Vulnerable; Intense Motivation to Succeed; Obligation to Help Others."
## [6771] "Scales: Protective factors; Risk factors. Subscales: Models protection; Controls protection; Support protection; Models risk; Opportunity risk-availability; Opportunity risk-gangs; Vulnerability risk."
## [6772] "Factors: Disclosure; Clarity; Accuracy."
## [6773] "Factors: Food Responsiveness; Enjoyment of Food; Slowness in Eating; Satiety Responsiveness."
## [6774] "Factors: Depression subscale; Mania subscale; Total score."
## [6775] "Factors: SCS-reminder; SCS-social; SCS-positive; SCS-weak; SCS-suicide."
## [6776] "Subscale: Negative attributions and inferences."
## [6777] "Subscales: Emotional processing; Emotional expression."
## [6778] "Subscales: Cognitive Concealment; Affective Concealment; Behavioral Concealment."
## [6779] "Subscales: Driving frequency; Attitude towards formats of VMS; Attitude towards contents of VMS; Driver decision-making; Effectiveness of VMS message; Perceived quality of service."
## [6780] "High Standards; Order; Discrepancy"
## [6781] "Factors: Callous scale; Antisocial; Egocentric."
## [6782] "Factors: Machiavellian approach (App); Machiavellian avoidance (Av)."
## [6783] "Factors: Reappraisal; Cognitive distraction; Aggressive suppression; Worry; Behavioral distraction."
## [6784] "Factors: Reading; Interacting."
## [6785] "Factors: Mental fatigue (ChCFS-Mental); Physical fatigue (ChCFS-Physical)."
## [6786] "Subscales: International problem behavior (IPB); Interpersonal problem-solving inventory (IPSI) [Factors: positive problem-solving behavior (PPSB); negative problem-solving behavior (NPSB); rational problem-solving behavior (RPSB); impulsive behavior (IB); avoidance behavior (AB)]."
## [6787] "Factors: Fat Activism; Health Beliefs; Interpersonal Respect."
## [6788] "Factors: Human-oriented Fluency; Robot-oriented Fluency; Team-oriented Fluency."
## [6789] "Factors: Identity; Self-direction; Empathy; Intimacy. Subscales: Self; Interpersonal."
## [6790] "Factors: PREPS-Preparedness Stress (PS); PREPS-Prenatal Infection Stress (PIS); PREPS-Positive Appraisal (PA)."
## [6791] "Subscales: Rewarding; Able; Willing."
## [6792] "Factors: Positive Couples Extrinsic Emotion Regulation (CEER+); Negative Couples Extrinsic Emotion (CEER-)."
## [6793] "Subscales: Irrationality; Rationality. Factors: Irrational Demandingness; Irrational Catastrophizing; Irrational Frustration Intolerance; Irrational Self-Downing; Rational Preference; Rational Realistic Evaluation of Badness; Rational Frustration Tolerance; Rational Self-Acceptance."
## [6794] "Factors: Bully; Assistant; Victim; Defender; Outsider."
## [6795] "Subscales: Bully; Assistant; Victim; Defender; Outsider."
## [6796] "Factors: Faux pas (FP); Non-faux pas."
## [6797] "Factors: Facilitators (Obligation to tell the facts necessary to understand what happened; Obligation to make it clear that what happened was a mistake; Believing disclosure is right even if it comes at a significant cost; Believing disclosure is important because that is how I would want to be treated); Impediments (Negative patient/family reaction; Malpractice litigation; Professional discipline; Loss of reputation from colleagues; Blame from colleagues; Negative publicity)."
## [6798] "Factors: Non-cognitive beliefs; Subjective norms; Intention; Anticipated regret; Descriptive norms; Attitude; Perceived control; Knowledge."
## [6799] "Factors: Affect and Communication; Autonomy Promotion; Behavioral Control; Psychological Control; Revelation; Humor."
## [6800] "Subscales: Psychological control (PC); Behavioral control (BC); Affection and communication (AC); Humor (H); Promotion of autonomy (PA); Self-disclosure (SD)."
## [6801] "Factors: Perceived competency and knowledge in dementia care; Attitudes towards Alzheimer Plan; Practices (cognitive evaluation); Attitudes towards dementia; Attitudes towards collaboration with nurses and other health care professionals."
## [6802] "Factors: Unconditional Permission to Eat; Eating for Physical Rather than Emotional Reasons; Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues; Body-Food Choice Congruence."
## [6803] "Subscales: Health; Environment; Animal rights."
## [6804] "Factors: Vaccine knowledge; Perceived negative publicity; Information forwarding; Systematic processing; Risk perception; Protective behavioral intentions."
## [6805] "Factors: Perceived stigma; No perceived stigma."
## [6806] "Subscales: Aesthetic appreciation; Intense aesthetic experience; Creative behavior."
## [6807] "Factors: Decisional procrastination; Implemental procrastination; Timeliness and promptness."
## [6808] "Factors: Emotional contagion (EC); Attention to others' feelings (AOF); Prosocial actions (PA)."
## [6809] "Factors: Dysphoria; Psychic anxiety."
## [6810] "Subscales: Traffic violations; Ordinary violations; Distractions; Impulsive behaviors; Errors."
## [6811] "Factors: Mutilation and Imperfectness; Legacy for Family; Altruism; Detachment; Eradication of Hope; Burden on Family."
## [6812] "Factors: Attitude toward waterpipe tobacco smoking (ATT); Subjective norms (SN); Perceived behavioral control (PCB); Behavioral intention (INT)."
## [6813] "Subscales: Cheer; Calm; Pride; Anger; Fear; Remorse. Factors: Positive ITLEs; Negative ITLEs."
## [6814] "Scales: Collaboration technology use; Perceived persistence of communication; Response expectations; Technology-assisted supplemental work (TASW)."
## [6815] "Subscales: Steering; Friendly; Understanding; Accommodating; Uncertain; Dissatisfied; Reprimanding; Enforcing."
## [6816] "Factors: Enjoyment in Company; Self-efficacy versus boredom; Sense of humor; Imagination; Interest."
## [6817] "Factors: Family influence; Peer influence; Social media influence; Covid-19 fear; Attitude toward giving up unhealthy foods; Health consciousness; Healthy nutrition."
## [6818] "Factor: Task; Context."
## [6819] "Factors: Thought Suppression; Thought Substitution; Distraction; Avoidance of Threatening Stimuli; Transformation of Images into Thoughts."
## [6820] "Factors: Personal Resources (PR); Family Resources (SR-F); Peer Resources (SR-P)."
## [6821] "Subscales: Balance; Working Memory; Response Inhibition; Self-Regulation; Rhythm/Coordination; Attention; Motor Speed."
## [6822] "Factors: Perceived Benefits (Weight loss); Perceived Barriers (Weight loss); Perceived Threat (Weight Loss); Self-efficacy (Weight loss); Weight Loss Intention; Performance Expectancy (APP); Risk Perception (APP); Behavioral Intention (APP)."
## [6823] "Subscales: Food responsiveness; Emotional over-eating; Enjoyment of food; Desire to drink; Satiety responsiveness; Slowness in eating; Emotional under-eating; Food fussiness."
## [6824] "Domains: Core foods; Non-core foods."
## [6825] "Factors: Decision-making approach; Decision-making avoidance."
## [6826] "Factors: Digital mindset; Digital operations; Digital strategy; Professional self design."